China's Revised Lawyer's Law: Practical Benefits for a Strengthened Legal Profession
The Lawyer's Law is expected to make a major contribution to strengthening the independence of China's legal profession, and help enhance the quality and diversity of legal services available in China.
Date:
October 2007
Keywords (click to search): [legal profession] [legal practice] [lawyer] [legal indepedence] [legal service] [bar] [lawyer liability] [PRC lawyers] [law firm governance]
By Huen Wong and Adam H. Arkel Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP, in association with Huen Wong & Co.
The People's Republic of China (PRC) is considering new rules governing legal practice that will have a significant impact on how law firms represent their clients' interests within China. In late June, the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) submitted to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC) draft revisions to the PRC Lawyer's Law, China's principal statute regulating lawyers that was originally enacted in 1996. In late August, the NPCSC began consideration of a second version of these draft revisions. For convenience, this article assumes that the revised Lawyer's Law will be promulgated substantially as currently proposed. Readers should carefully monitor subsequent developments as consideration of draft revisions to the Lawyer's Law moves forward.
Protections for the Attorney-Client Relationship
A major practical benefit of the revised Lawyer's Law will be the formalization of several key protections for the attorney-client relationship - these protections will greatly increase the ability of lawyers in China to represent their clients effectively. First, the revised law will provide that - except in cases involving state secrets - a lawyer retained by a suspect may meet with his client from the time when the client is subject to initial interrogation or compulsory process by investigative authorities. The revised law will stipulate that meetings between the client and his lawyer shall not be monitored. (It has been reported that, in furtherance of protecting the right to have such meetings, the August version of the draft revisions removed language that would have restricted such meetings to locations where security precautions shall have been taken - this is notable given that the deleted language did not specify how determinations with respect to the adequacy of security precautions would be made.)
To continue reading this article, you must be a subscriber.
The rest of this article is available to subscribers only. Subscribe now to continue reading this article and to have full access to all other articles and full-text translations.