@article{oai:tsukuba.repo.nii.ac.jp:00046452,
 author = {HOSHINO, Yutaka and 星野, 豊},
 journal = {情報ネットワーク・ローレビュー, Information network law review},
 month = {Mar},
 note = {近時、最高裁は、弁護士法23条の2に基づく弁護士会照会に対する報告拒絶について、報告拒絶自体が当事者、代理人弁護士、あるいは弁護士会に対する不法行為となることはないが、弁護士会は照会した相手方に対して報告を行う義務があることの確認を求めることができ、報告義務の内容については個別の事案ごとに裁判所が判断する、と判示した。しかしながら、情報管理者の側からすると、弁護士会照会を受けで情報を開示したことが、当該情報の本人に対する不法行為とされた旨の判例もある以上、どの範囲の情報を開示すべきであるかは明らかでない。本稿では、この問題の根源は、そもそも裁判手続の中で当事者および関係者個人に係る住所氏名等の情報が直接求められ、かつ、それらが公開されるという点にあることを指摘し、裁判手続における個人の情報の取扱や、個人に関する情報の開示について、新たな手続の検討が必要であることを主張する。, In recent times, the Supreme Court decided as to the refusal to report to the Bar Association Inquiry pursuant to Article 23-2 of the Attorney Act, the refusal to report itself would not be a tort against the parties, agent lawyers, or bar associations, but the Bar Association should be able to confirm that the inquired party has a duty to report the information inquired and that the court will judge the details of the reporting obligation for each individual case. However, on the side of the inquired party administering the information of others, it is not obvious which range of information should be disclosed, as it is a precedent that the disclosure of information by referring to a lawyer was regarded as a tort against the subject of the information. In this paper, I point out that the root of this problem is that information such as name and address etc. concerning the parties and related individuals in the case of the judicial proceedings are directly requ.ested, and such information should be made public generally. Then, I state that it is necessary to construct new judicial procedures concerning the handling and protecting of information of the parties and related individuals.},
 pages = {1--14},
 title = {〈論説〉弁護士会照会と情報の保護},
 volume = {16},
 year = {2018},
 yomi = {ホシノ, ユタカ}
}