笔者当年上法学院时，听教授说过这样一个问题：如果你是一个刑事辩护律师，你有一个当事人天天吃喝嫖赌无恶不作，你还要不要替他辩护？你仍然要替他辩护。因为他是你的当事人，而你是律师不是法官——你不能凭你的好恶判决他有没有罪。既然你是律师，你的职责就是维护他的利益，哪怕他的行为作风让你极端厌恶。
现在回想起来，这在一定程度上反映了律师职业道德中的“当事人主义”思想。即律师的最高职业道德就是维护客户的利益。当维护客户利益与普通道德相冲突时，前者优先。应该说，这个想法在今天中国还是比较有市场的。正如北大的贺卫方教授在《律师与正义》（2011年4月24日在中国人民大学律师学院首届论坛上的点评）中提到的：“律师必须要最大限度地维护客户利益，只有这样才能形成力的抗衡和平衡。”贺卫方教授还举例说：“例如律师在执业中间为客户保密，律师遇到的难堪情形是什么？你的客户跟你说，他们只知道我抢了银行的钱，不知道我去年杀了两个人。你怎么办呢？你作为道德那么美好的律师，是不是要去揭发呢？不，绝对不能揭发，因为揭发会动摇律师职业的根基，那就是国民对律师的信赖。根基不存，法治大厦也就毁于一旦了。”
当谈到律师制度时，中国的律师们普遍比较羡慕英美法系中律师能在法庭上呼风唤雨，并希望中国的律师也能有更加自由的地位。然而在这种谈到律师制度“言必称英美”的环境下，我国很多法律人却持有前述的严格“当事人主义”思想，却是件有趣的事。因为恰恰是在美国，“当事人主义”并不像我国法律人所认为的那么受欢迎。
在美国，律师执业时所受的限制主要不是来自法律，而是来自当地律师协会制定的职业规范。违反从业规范的律师会受到律协的警告、训诫甚至吊销律师执照的处分。全美律师协会（ABA, American Bar Association）制定过一个《标准从业规范》（ABA Model Rules），作为各地律协职业规范的范本。这个《标准从业规范》也是美国律师资格考试时必考的内容。它代表了全美国律师界最普遍接受的职业道德标准。（这部规范的全文可以在科奈尔大学法学院网站上的这个页面找到http://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/aba/current/ABA_CODE.HTM#Rule_1.0）
若以这份《标准从业规范》来衡量前述笔者的法学教授以及贺卫方教授的那番话，会发现它们（至少在美国）可能都是不成立的。
首先，笔者教授当年这番话与《标准从业规范》的规定不符。律师完全可以拒绝为一个自己讨厌的客户服务。《标准从业规范》1.16(b)(4)规定：如果客户坚持做律师极端反感的事，律师可以中止服务，除非法院直接发命令禁止他退出。[①]但6.2(c)则又进一步规定：当法院命令一个律师做某人某案的代理人时，若律师非常厌恶那个人以至于可能影响律师—客户关系或律师的代理能力，律师可以拒绝法院的此项任命。[②]
其次，贺卫方教授的那段话过度强调了律师的保密义务。《标准从业规范》1.6(a)确实规定律师对客户有保密的义务。但是1.6(b)中列举了一些保密义务的例外。其中(1)(2)(3)项指出，当律师为防止或缓解他人的人身财产损失时，可以在必要范围内披露与客户有关的信息。[③]以贺卫方教授所提到的情形为例。“你的客户跟你说，他们只知道我抢了银行的钱，不知道我去年杀了两个人”。这意味着什么呢？意味着如果客户这事不被发现的话，可能会有其他无辜的人被怀疑为杀害两人的凶犯。他们可能会遭遇拘留、逮捕等强制措施，甚至可能被判刑，从而遭受严重的人身伤害或财产损失。因此如果依照全美律协的《标准从业规范》，这种情况下律师是可以（不是必须！）披露这个信息的。但贺卫方教授说“绝对不能揭发”，就言过其实了。甚至说如果揭发了“会动摇律师职业的根基”乃至“法治大厦也就毁于一旦”，则有点危言耸听。美国律协的这个规定已经执行很多年。（下文还会提到在某些情况下律师有更严格的揭发义务 。）美国的法治大厦有没有因此毁于一旦呢？其实并没有。
笔者的法学老师和贺卫方教授都认识到了律师职业道德的一个方面：律师维护当事人合法权益的责任。但他们可能不够重视律师职业道德的另一个重要方面：律师保障司法公正的责任。在《标准从业规范》中可以看出，美国律师协会是同样重视这两个方面的职业道德的——有时候甚至更重视后者。
《标准从业规范》中维护司法公正的一个基本精神，就是律师必须诚实。3.3(a)(1)规定：律师不得蓄意（此处原文用词为knowingly，依据1.0(f)中的定义，knowingly不仅指确切知道，而且可通过环境因素推定其知道[④]）对法庭做与事实或法律不符的陈述。[⑤]4.1(a)规定：律师不得蓄意对第三人做与事实或法律不符的陈述。[⑥]这两条合起来，其实就是：律师在参与诉讼的过程中，在案件事实与法律方面，不得对任何人蓄意说谎。
我国《中华人民共和国律师法》第49条也规定律师不得“向司法行政部门提供虚假材料或者有其他弄虚作假行为”，也不得“故意提供虚假证据或者威胁、利诱他人提供虚假证据，妨碍对方当事人合法取得证据”。与美国律协的《标准从业规范》相比差距非常明显：我国仅禁止律师对司法行政弄虚作假，而《标准从业规范》不但禁止律师对法庭说谎，还禁止律师对第三人说谎。此外我国《律师法》仅禁止提供虚假材料、证据。而美国律协的《标准从业规范》不但禁止提供虚假信息，而且禁止律师蓄意隐瞒重要信息，甚至不允许隐瞒对己方不利的信息！
《标准从业规范》3.3(d)规定：在与法院的单方面交流（如向法院申请临时强制措施）中，律师不得隐瞒对己方不利的案件事实。3.3(a)(2)规定：当律师明知存在对己方当事人不利的法律，而对方律师却没有提到时，律师有义务向法庭指出来。3.3(a)(3)规定：如果律师发现己方当事人或证人提供伪证，必须采取合理补救措施，包括必要时向法庭举报（官方解释中说“合理补救措施”指的是劝阻，如果劝阻不了就得举报）。3.3(b)规定：如果律师在代理诉讼时发现有人曾经、正在或将要从事与该诉讼程序相关的犯罪、欺诈活动（如伪造证据等），必须采取合理补救措施，包括必要时向法庭举报。3.3(c)则特地说明：前文所述(a)款和(b)款的情形下，不适用律师对当事人的保密义务。[⑦]
这可能会和国内对律师义务的普遍理解有很大差异。正如贺卫方教授所总结的，国内法律界对律师职责的理解通常为“律师必须要最大限度地维护客户利益，只有这样才能形成力的抗衡和平衡”。通过双方律师各为其主的工作，达到一个平衡，从而实现公平正义。在这种指导下，律师可以心安理得地只提出对己方有利的法律。对我方不利的就让对方律师自己去找吧。如果对方没找到则我方求之不得。但美国律师界恰恰是反对这种做法的。即使对自己不利的法律，也必须向法院提出来。在与法院的单方面接触中，连对自己不利的事实也必须说出来。尤其与贺卫方教授所理解的“绝对不能揭发”不同的是：在涉及与诉讼程序有关的犯罪与欺诈活动时，律师不但可以，甚至是必须揭发！《标准从业规范》特地说明：此时律师对当事人的保密义务不适用！
除了诉讼活动中这些“揭发义务”外，律师之间对违反从业规范的行为也有监督、举报的义务。《标准从业规范》8.3(a)规定：如果律师发现其他律师违背行业规范，有损诚信度或其他方面律师资格的行为，有义务向相关的职业规范管理机构举报。（但律师—客户保密义务的情况除外。）[⑧]
以上是关于律师需要开口的部分。同时为了确保司法公正，有时律师则被要求不许开口。国内很多律师习惯于诉讼活动时在网络上大造舆论，以博取公众对当事人的同情（或对对方当事人的厌恶）。这种做法是被美国律协明令禁止的。《标准从业规范》3.6(a)规定：参加侦查、诉讼的律师，不得在法庭外发表该律师知道或应该知道会引发公众偏见并影响裁决的言论。3.6(b)规定了一些允许发布的基本信息，如当事人姓名、开庭时间等。3.6(c)提到了另一个例外，就是如果先前已有其他人散布引起公众对己方当事人偏见的消息，律师为了澄清而发话——但这也仅限于消除影响所必需的限度之内。3.6(d)进一步规定：上述规定不但适用于律师本人，也适用于和律师同一个律所的其他所有律师。[⑨]美国律协的这些规定，就是为了避免公众舆论对司法活动的不利影响，确保案件审判依法进行。
从上文可以看出，美国律师界是“当事人利益”与“司法公正”两种价值并重的。并非国内一般理解的那样：双方律师尽力向自己方向拔河，从而使案件裁判做到不偏不倚。美国律师界的做法是：双方的律师需要为当事人的利益服务；但同时双方律师都有义务协助法庭查清真相并正确适用法律——即使某些方面的因素对自己当事人不利，也不能隐瞒；不能做任何违法之事，也不能发动公众舆论来影响法庭判决。这就是典型的英美法系——以律师自由且在诉讼中作用很大为特征——对律师行为的规范。
现在我国律师制度建设方面，常常借鉴英美法系。笔者认为借鉴的基础是全面理解。在强调英美法系律师在诉讼活动中的自由的同时，也必须看到美国律协对律师的行为有着严格的行业规范。美国的律师制度不仅强调保护当事人的利益，也强调——在某种程度上甚至更强调——律师对法庭活动和公正审判的支持。如果我们只片面加强前者而忽视后者，可能有邯郸学步之虞。
[①] 原文：Rule 1.16 Declining or TerminatingRepresentation
(b)except as stated in paragraph (c), a lawyer may withdraw from representing aclient if:
……
(4) the client insists upon taking actionthat the lawyer considers repugnant or with which the lawyer has a fundamentaldisagreement;
……
(7) other good cause for withdrawal exists.
(c)A lawyer must comply with applicable law requiring notice to or permission of atribunal when terminating a representation. When ordered to do so by atribunal, a lawyer shall continue representation notwithstanding good cause forterminating the representation.
[②] 原文：Rule6.2 Accepting Appointments
A lawyershall not seek to avoid appointment by a tribunal to represent a person exceptfor good cause, such as:
……
(c) the client or the cause is so repugnantto the lawyer as to be likely to impair the client-lawyer relationship or thelawyer's ability to represent the client.
[③] 原文：Rule1.6: Confidentiality of Information
(a) Alawyer shall not reveal information relating to the representation of a clientunless the client gives informed consent, the disclosure is impliedlyauthorized in order to carry out the representation or the disclosure ispermitted by paragraph (b).
(b) Alawyer may reveal information relating to the representation of a client to theextent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary:
(1) to prevent reasonably certain death orsubstantial bodily harm;
(2) to prevent the client from committing acrime or fraud that is reasonably certain to result in substantial injury tothe financial interests or property of another and in furtherance of which theclient has used or is using the lawyer's services;
(3) to prevent, mitigate or rectifysubstantial injury to the financial interests or property of another that isreasonably certain to result or has resulted from the client's commission of acrime or fraud in furtherance of which the client has used the lawyer'sservices;
[④] 原文：Rule1.0: Terminology
……
(f)"Knowingly," "known," or "knows" denotes actualknowledge of the fact in question. A person's knowledge may be inferred fromcircumstances.
[⑤] 原文：Rule3.3 Candor Toward the tribunal
(a) Alawyer shall not knowingly:
(1) make a false statement of fact or law toa tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or lawpreviously made to the tribunal by the lawyer;
[⑥] 原文：Rule4.1 truthfulness in Statements to Others
In thecourse of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly:
(a)make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person;
[⑦] 原文：Rule3.3 Candor Toward the tribunal
(a) Alawyer shall not knowingly:
(1) make a false statement of fact or law toa tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or lawpreviously made to the tribunal by the lawyer;
(2) fail to disclose to the tribunal legalauthority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directlyadverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel; or
(3) offer evidence that the lawyer knows tobe false. If a lawyer, the lawyer's client, or a witness called by the lawyer,has offered material evidence and the lawyer comes to know of its falsity, thelawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary,disclosure to the tribunal. A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence, other thanthe testimony of a defendant in a criminal matter, that the lawyer reasonablybelieves is false.
(b) Alawyer who represents a client in an adjudicative proceeding and who knows thata person intends to engage, is engaging or has engaged in criminal orfraudulent conduct related to the proceeding shall take reasonable remedialmeasures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal.
(c)The duties stated in paragraphs (a) and (b) continue to the conclusion of theproceeding, and apply even if compliance requires disclosure of informationotherwise protected by Rule 1.6.
(d)In an ex parte proceeding, a lawyer shall inform the tribunal of all materialfacts known to the lawyer that will enable the tribunal to make an informeddecision, whether or not the facts are adverse.
[⑧] 原文：Rule 8.3 Reporting Professional Misconduct
(a) Alawyer who knows that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules ofProfessional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer'shonesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, shall informthe appropriate professional authority.
(b) Alawyer who knows that a judge has committed a violation of applicable rules ofjudicial conduct that raises a substantial question as to the judge's fitnessfor office shall inform the appropriate authority.
(c)This Rule does not require disclosure of information otherwise protected byRule 1.6 or information gained by a lawyer or judge while participating in anapproved lawyers assistance program.
[⑨] 原文：Rule 3.6 trial Publicity
(a) Alawyer who is participating or has participated in the investigation orlitigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that thelawyer knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of publiccommunication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicingan adjudicative proceeding in the matter.
(b)Notwithstanding paragraph (a), a lawyer may state:
(1) the claim, offense or defense involvedand, except when prohibited by law, the identity of the persons involved;
(2) information contained in a public record;
(3) that an investigation of a matter is inprogress;
(4) the scheduling or result of any step inlitigation;
(5) a request for assistance in obtainingevidence and information necessary thereto;
(6) a warning of danger concerning thebehavior of a person involved, when there is reason to believe that thereexists the likelihood of substantial harm to an individual or to the publicinterest; and
(7) in a criminal case, in addition tosubparagraphs (1) through (6):
(i) the identity, residence,occupation and family status of the accused;
(ii) if the accused has not been apprehended,information necessary to aid in the apprehension of that person;
(iii) the fact, time and place ofarrest; and
(iv) the identity of investigatingand arresting officers or agencies and the length of the investigation.
(c)Notwithstanding paragraph (a), a lawyer may make a statement that a reasonablelawyer would believe is required to protect a client from the substantial undueprejudicial effect of recent publicity not initiated by the lawyer or thelawyer's client. A statement made pursuant to this paragraph shall be limitedto such information as is necessary to mitigate the recent adverse publicity.
(d) Nolawyer associated in a firm or government agency with a lawyer subject toparagraph (a) shall make a statement prohibited by paragraph (a).
