The Committee on the Discipline of Lawyers and the Committee on the Review Discipline of Lawyers, established according to Articles 41 and 43 of the Lawyers Act, serve as the first trial and final appeal tribunals of professional discipline within the organizations of the High Court and Supreme Court, and are different from the Committee on the Discipline of Accountants and other professional disciplinary organizations which are within the organizations of the Executive branch. The resolution of the Committee on the Review Discipline of Lawyers is therefore equivalent to the final and binding judgment of the court which is not an administrative act or a decision of administrative appeal and cannot be appealed through administrative litigation. Interpretation No. 295 of this Yuan should thus be further supplemented.

　　　 Article 16 of the Constitution prescribes the people's right of instituting legal proceedings, which means the people in accordance with legal proceeding, have the right to request the court to adjudicate on their respective legal disputes, and such right has already been interpreted by this Yuan (See Interpretations Nos. 220 and 368). The so-called "court" will certainly include the adjudicating institution composed of judges. However, some adjudicating institutions, established within the judiciary and composed of both judges and professionals, should be deemed to be equivalent to the "court," in the case where the members of such institutions exercise their authority independently from interference, and the procedural rules applied are similar to the court proceeding. Then the people's right of instituting legal proceedings is not violated should their respective disputes be adjudicated by such institutions in accordance with law.

　　　 In regard to the matters of violation of professional obligations and discipline of the professionals, the disciplinary institutions are mostly in the form of committees composed of the members of the respective professions, officials of relevant authority, and relevant experts according to the organic charter promulgated by the governing authority authorized by law, e.g., the disciplinary institutions of accountants and architects. As for lawyers whose mission is to protect human rights, uphold social justice and to promote democracy and the rule of law (See Article 1 of the Lawyers Act amended and promulgated on Nov. 16, 1992), their practice is naturally mutually supportive and highly related to the adjudication of the court. Therefore, the legal rules regarding the establishment of the disciplinary institutions are different from those regarding other professions. According to Article 41 of the Lawyers Act: “The Committee on the Discipline of Lawyers should be composed of three judges of the High Court, one prosecutor from the prosecutor’s office in the High Court, and five lawyers; one of the members of the above committee should be elected chairperson." Article 43 of the same Act also reads: “The Committee on the Review Discipline of Lawyers should be composed of four justices of the Supreme Court, one prosecutor from the prosecutor’s office in the Supreme Court, five lawyers and two scholars; one of the members of the above committee should be elected chairperson." In regard to the proceeding of disciplinary matters, Article 40 of the same Act adopts the principle of prosecution, that is, the disciplinary procedure is initiated by a government organ other than the Discipline Committee or by the bar association. Also according to the Rules of Lawyer Discipline, authorized and promulgated pursuant to Article 52, Paragraph 2, of the same Act, the abovementioned Committees are established within the High Court and Supreme Court, respectively, in the structural sense and their members practically enjoy the same degree of independence as other judges of the same institutions do in the exercise of authority. In addition, as regards the rules of official withdrawal, case allocation, evidence investigation (may request the court to investigate), affidavit recording, verdict and documentation, etc., either the relevant rules of the Law of Criminal Procedure shall also be applied or, they are similar to the procedure of adjudication. The respective committees are the professional disciplinary tribunals of the courts in terms of their characteristics and are different from other committees of professional discipline established under the Executive branch. Though the members of the respective committees include lawyers and scholars in addition to judges and prosecutors, this is the common practice for the organization of professional discipline and does not affect its character as the tribunal exercising the authority of professional discipline. The disciplined lawyer may appeal the resolution of the Committee on the Discipline of Lawyers and request for review. The resolution of the Committee on the Review Discipline of Lawyers is the final and binding judgment of the court in its character which is not an administrative act or a decision of administrative appeal and cannot be appealed through administrative litigation. Interpretation No. 295 of this Yuan should thus be further supplemented. And since the Committee on the Discipline of Lawyers bears the character of a professional disciplinary tribunal, it should be further pointed out that its official name should be changed to tribunal, when the relevant laws are revised, in order that its name accords with practice and to strengthen its judicial character.