專門職業人員的執業範疇，與人民之生命、身體、健康、財產或公共利益等重大權益有密切關係，在服務經濟時代高度專業分工的社會，專門職業證照制度在整體社會發展中愈顯得重要，並隨著新興及越多元之職類發展，專門職業證照之需求也越來越多。本研究欲從專門職業證照制度的理論基礎，從最初之專門職業之界定，以及專門職業之證照管制制度，包括背後管制的理由與意涵、政府與專門職業團體之間的關係及對於整體勞動市場的影響，探討專門職業證照的種類與數量持續成長的原因，在專門職業證照的管制制度下對於政府、專門職業人員與人民之間的影響為何，是保障服務品質抑或限制了競爭，並比較國外發展情形，提出國內證照制度之政策建議。 在我國的專門職業證照制度，目前法定之專門職業，憲法明定應由考試院權責其資格考試，但隨著社會分工複雜化與現代社會之發展，越來越多職業欲透過各種方式成為專門職業，出現過度專門化之現象，因此，應符合何種標準始為專門職業，確立專門職業之定義與範圍即為首要任務。再者，我國現行專門職業證照制度偏重政府之考試職能，專門職業之證照考試由考試院掌理，雖然執業時仍應加入專門職業團體，但仍受地方主管機關之管理。在此背景下，政府介入管制之程度較英美國家為深。我國專門職業人員之證照制度偏向資格考試的通過與否，常見情形是考過資格考試就等於確立該專門職業頭銜，但考取時與數十年後之執業水準能否維持一致，則需有持續不斷的訓練考評機制，以落實完整的專門職業證照制度。

專門職業人員資格之取得，依憲法規定必須經過依法考銓之程序，此等對人民營業自由所設之規範，目的固在維護人民生命、身體及財產安全，為增進公共利益所必要，但也因此造成專門職業服務市場之參進障礙，形成供給面之限制。再者，由於專門職業服務具有資訊不對稱之特性，造成市場失靈現象，使得該市場中存有管制之必要性。然管制有其功效、亦有弊病，最明顯者是阻礙創新與進步。因此於管制的運用及競爭法之介入二者間，有必要尋求一適用之界線。 於外國實務上，如美國，歐盟和日本等，競爭法是否適用於專門職業已無疑義。除了在特殊情況下（如美國的州政府行為豁免原則）可能豁免競爭法之適用外，並不能僅因行為涉及專門職業即認為不適用競爭法。雖專門職業服務業與一般商業服務在性質上有所不同，惟此僅意味著在專門職業服務市場中之競爭狀況可能有所不同，故應以合理原則，於個案中具體考量產業特性、市場結構、行為效果等因素，始能作出是否違法之判斷結論。 99年開始我國公平交易法適用於專門職業服務業之問題開始發生爭議，短短5年內即可見行政法院之見解有明顯變化，而公平交易委員會歷經數案爭訟過程後，亦開始省思及加強如何論述其認定違法之依據，以尋求行政救濟機關之支持。本文即針對專門職業服務業於公平交易法上之適用關係與規範問題，進行深入之探討，並期能藉由法律與經濟等不同角度之觀察與分析，對未來公平交易法就此議題之具體適用方法，提出建議供參。 / Professionals are required to be registered through examination under the Constitution. Although such requirement is considered necessary to enhance public interests and to ensure the safety of the people and their properties, it also results in the barrier of entry into relevant market. Simultaneously, professional regulation is often addressed to a perceived “market failure” in the market for professional services due to its characteristics of information symmetry. Regulation of professional services can protect vulnerable consumers, but it can also prevent innovation and other competition. The conflict between regulation and free competition therefore exists and the boundary should have to be found. In US, EU and Japan, whether the competition law should apply to the professionals is no longer a question. Although professional services by their nature may differ significantly from other business services, that only means the nature of the competition in such services may vary and should be judged by the Rule of Reason under the competition law. Only in very specific situations (such as the “state action doctrine” in US) would there be an exemption. Similar discussion occurred in Taiwan since 2010, and just during 5 years could we see the obvious change of opinions expressed by Administrative Courts. Taiwan Fair Trade Commission faced numerous challenges through the petitioning procedure in cases related to professionals, and tried hard to strengthen the economical analysis in late cases. This study discusses the related issues of professional service under the Fair Trade Act through legal and economic analysis, and try to make recommendations on handling relevant cases.

專門職業過去向以其負擔無限責任豎立專業形象，然英美等大型訴訟的發生反使得專業人士成了求償的「深口袋」，這正是英美有限責任合夥制度產生的濫觴。 英美的有限責任合夥立法初衷，係為律師、會計師等專業人士承擔無限責任尋求解套的途徑，而面對我國專門職業者如律師、會計師等，亦遭遇大案，面臨無限責任沈重負擔之際，本論文嘗試從英美法制，尤其是以美國法制為著眼點，尋求制度引進的可行性。事實上令專業負有限責任，在美國尚可組成專業公司或有限責任企業，然此兩種制度除了稅制考量外，也較偏向公司經營管理，甚至因為可以公開招募而容易觸動聯邦證券交易法的干預，也因此，有限責任合夥延續舊有合夥法律關係的組織特性，廣受傳統上以合夥成立的專業組織所青睞。 以美國有限責任合夥法制而言，其本質為合夥，因此其優勢為保有合夥諸多彈性自由的管理規則，賦予合夥人廣大的協議空間，另一方面使合夥人僅負有限責任，免除無限責任的負累，然反面觀之，其最爭議者在於債權人保護的疑慮，美國於2001年爆發恩隆弊案，涉案的安達信會計師事務所正是於伊利諾州註冊登記為有限責任合夥，有限責任合夥在恩隆案中於是受到前所未有的考驗，事實上在美國各州，也透過保險、獨立基金的設置甚至揭開面紗法則適用不同程度保障債權人。 相較之下，英國的有限責任合夥法制，則以公司法為其內涵，因此有限責任合夥法受到更多的管理與限制，除了內部管理沿襲合夥的規定外，在事務執行及破產清算等，均需依循公司法規的管制，在債權人保護上英國法則直接在其有限責任合夥法規定成員擔保及資產取回的機制。 本文認為在立法走向上，得借鏡美國法制，另立新法，使有限責任合夥維持其合夥本質，並賦予法人格，且加強債權人保護之配套措施，期能提供專業組織架構的另一選擇。 / Professionals such as accountants and lawyers used to keep its reputation by taking unlimited liability. However, such unlimited liability makes these professionals to be deep pockets, as the result of the frequent lawsuits in recent years. Due to this reason, adopting limited liability partnership (LLP) seems to be the solution. LLP is a form of doing business, combining the feature of a limited corporation and the flexibility of a general partnership. LLP in United Kingdom and United States all granted the privilege of limited liability to the innocent partners, also keeping their personal assets apart from the creditors’ claim. LLP is available to all types of business in UK; however, in some US states, the LLP is only available to specific licensed professionals. Because of the character of the limited liability, protecting the interest of the creditors would be the most significant problem. To solve this dilemma, US adopt several methods such as using the insurance, doctrine of piercing the veil and creating the asset segregation to balance the interest between the professionals and the creditors. In UK, the company law and insolvency law all tried to cover LLP, in order to keep the LLP’s assets as a guarantee to creditors; such laws also request to disclose important business information of prospective risks to the public. Besides, both UK and US laws require the word “LLP” must be specified in the name of any LLP organizations. In 2001, the Enron scandal was a shock to the world. Arthur Andersen, a well known LLP accounting firm which provides dishonest service for Enron, has triggered the debate of whether LLP is still appropriate. Therefore, my study is going to analyze the pros and cons of LLP in the following chapter. Because of the unlimited liability is the only choice for professionals in Taiwan, we are going to learn from the UK and US laws. As for my conclusion, it is necessary enact an LLP Act to provide an alternative to the professionals.