中国法律职业状况调查报告

双城记中国法律职业状况报告Ataleoftwocities

ThelegalprofessioninChina发布人：国际律师协会，伦敦By

IBA研究作者：ByMarcoMarazzi

andChenYouxi

[国际律协意大利律师]MarcoMarazzi

[中国律师]陈有西

[研究助理]：中国人民大学律师学院法律硕士研究生

刘芸

[英文正式发布文件,PDF转换]

INTERNATIONALBAR

ASSOCIATION’SHUMAN

RIGHTSINSTITUTE(IBAHRI)

THEMATICPAPERSNo2ATaleofTwoCities–

theLegalProfessioninChinaMarcoMarazziandChenYouxi

Materialcontainedinthisreportmaybefreelyquotedorreprinted,

providedcreditisgiventotheInternationalBarAssociation.ATaleofTwoCities

–theLegalProfessioninChinaDECEMBER2012

ThispaperwillanalysethecurrentsituationofthelegalprofessioninChina,thedifficultiesfacedby

lawyers,andtheprospectsforimprovement.Itwillarguethat,whilethelegalprofessioninChinaisacquiringincreasingimportanceandstrength–withthenumberoflawyersnowexceeding230,000(asopposedtoonlyover2,000lessthan30yearsago)–theindependenceoflawyersremainsanaspirationmorethanareality;dependingontheirareaofpractice,lawyerscansuffergreatconstraintsinwhattheycanrealisticallyachieveandintheexerciseoftheirrights.Thisisgraduallyleadingtoabifurcationwithinthesystem:betweenlawyersdealingmostlywithcivilandcommercialmatterswhobenefitfrombothanincreasingabilitytoexercisetheirrightsandfromgrowingfinancialrewards;andlawyerswhodealwithmoresensitiveadministrativeandcriminalcases,whofaceofteninsurmountablechallenges,andasaconsequence,tendtobemuchlesssuccessfulfinanciallyandenjoyamuchlowerstatuswithinthelegalprofessionasawhole.

Inotherwords,whilelegalpractitionersmaybepartofthesamebarassociationandworkwithinthesamecity,theyareactuallylivingandworkingintwoseparateanddifferentworlds,dependingon

thenatureoftheirpractice.Theoutcomeisthatthebrightestandmorecapablelawyersoftentendtorefrainfromhandlingpreciselythosetypesofcaseswherealawyercanmakeadifferenceinthe

protectionoffundamentalrights.BackgroundDuringthe1930s,inthepartofChinathatwasundercontroloftheChineseCommunistParty,the

birthofthelegaldefencesystemcanbetracedbacktotheperiodoftheso-called‘revolutionary

bases’.In1932,alegaldefencesystemhadalreadybeencreatedinsidethebaseareasinaccordance

withtheInterimOrganizationsandRegulationsoftheJudgesDepartment,enactedbytheCentral

ExecutiveCommitteeoftheChineseSovietRepublic.Theserulesstatedorcanreduceoravoidcriminalliability,andtoprotectthelegitimaterightsandinterestsoftheaccused.

Thelawyerwaspermittedtoconsultthematerialsrelevanttothecase,andtomeetandcommunicatewith

theaccusedinwriting.Allofthiscouldbedonealsobyotherdefenderswiththepermissionofthecourt.

Thelawalsoprovidedthatincaseswheretherewasapublicprosecutor,iftheaccuseddidnotappointa

defender,thecourtcouldappointone.Duringthetrial,iftheaccusedbelievedthatthedefendercould

notprotecthisorherlegitimaterights,thelegaldefendercouldbedismissedandanotherappointed.TheGangofFourcomprisedMao’swifeandthreeotherCommunistPartyofficialswho,afterMao’sdeath,wereaccusedof‘anti-Party’

activitiesandofbeingresponsiblefortheworstexcessesduringtheCulturalRevolution.In1981,theyweretriedandconvictedinwhatmany

believewasapoliticallymotivatedtrialtoeliminatethemostconservativefigureswithinthePartyandstrengthenthepathtothe‘reformand

opening’policy.ATaleofTwoCities–theLegalProfessioninChinaDECEMBER2012

In1980,ChinaadoptedtheInterimRegulationsonLawyersofthePeople’sRepublicofChina

(the‘InterimRegulations’),followedin1981and1986byotherregulationsissuedbytheSupreme

People’sCourt,2theSupremePeople’sProcuratorate,3andtheMinistryofPublicSecurity.Forover

adecade,thislegislationformedthebackboneofthelegalframeworkregulatingtheestablishment

oflawfirmsandtheparticipationoflawyersincourtproceedings.Followingthereopeningoflaw

facultiesatthebeginningofthe1980s,thefirstlawyerqualificationexamswereheldin1986,the

sameyearwhentheAllChinaLawyersAssociation(ACLA)wasfounded.Onecouldjustifiably

say,therefore,thatthelegalprofessioninthe‘new’China(ie,theChinaemergingfromMao’s

totalitarianperiod)isbarely30yearsold.Underthe1980InterimRegulations,lawyersweredefinedas‘workersofthestate’who‘represented

thestate’and‘protectedtheinterestsofthestate’.Inotherwords,lawyerswereseenascivilservants;

theyweresalariedbythestateandthereforewerenotfreeprofessionals.Lawyerswereseenasa

componentoftheoveralladministrationofjusticeandwereexpectedtoassistintheenforcementof

lawsandregulations,andtoupholdthesocialistcause.4Accordingly,virtuallyalllawfirmsandlegal

advisoryofficescreatedinthedecadefollowingthereopeningoflawfacultieswereinonewayor

anotheraffiliatedtogovernmentdepartmentsorentities.Attheendofthe1980sthefirstforeignlawfirmsalsostartedflockingintoChina,initiallyinthe

formofconsultingcompanies,workingonnon-litigationmattersandnotallowedtoappearincourt.

However,foreignlawfirmsquicklyachievedanalmosttotalmonopolyoncommercialandcorporate

legaladvicegiventothelargenumberofforeigninvestorsenteringthecountry.In1992,theMoJissued

rulesrestrictingthescopeoftheforeignfirms’activities:whilestillabletohirelocallyqualifiedlawyers

andlawstudents,theywererestrictedtopractisingthelawoftheirhomecountriesanddealingwith

non-litigationmattersconcerningenterprisesfromtheirowncountries.Inotherwords,theycould

notpractiselocallaweveniftheyemployedlocally-qualifiedlawyers.Thissituationhasnotchanged.

Atthesametime,foreignfirmshavecontributedactivelytothetrainingofanewgenerationofPRC

commercialandcorporatelawyers,someofwhomlefttheseforeignfirmstosetuptheirownfirms.Atthebeginningofthe1990s,aspartoftheoveralleconomicliberalisationandreform,thefirst

firmsorganisedalongthelinesoftheprivatepartnershipmodelwereestablished.Manystate-owned

lawfirmsstartedtoconvertintopartnershipsusingapersonalpartnershipmodelwherepartners

assumeunlimitedjointandseveralliability,aswellasintocorporate-stylepartnerships.Junhe

LawOffices(nowoneofthelargestinChina)wasfoundedin1989;andKing&Wood,5another

prominentfirmwhichrecentlymergedwithanAustralianfirm,wasfoundedin1993.Duringthe

sameperiod,thefirstfirmsregisteredunderthenameofanindividuallawyeralsowerefounded.Since2008,withtheamendmentoftheLawyersLawofthePeople’sRepublicofChina(the

‘LawyersLaw’),over90percentofthelawfirmsinthecountryareorganisedunderthepersonal

partnershipmodelandnamedafterthepartners;althoughsomestate-ownedlawfirmsstillremain

insomeremoteandless-developedareas.Inaddition,allcorporate-stylepartnershipshadtobe2Thisisthehighest-levelcourtinChina.Itfunctionsascourtofappealforcasesheardbyprovinciallevelcourtsandprovidesinterpretationof

lawsandregulations.

3TheSupremePeople’sProcuratorateisthehighestlevelprosecutorialauthority.

4Asnotedbelow,toalargeextentlawyersarestillseenasperformingthis‘auxiliary’roleintheadministrationofjusticeandareexpectedto

protecttheinterestofthestateandoftheChineseCommunistParty.

5NowknownasKing&WoodMallesons.DECEMBER2012ATaleofTwoCities–theLegalProfessioninChina

reorganisedintermsofthepersonalpartnershipmodel.Meanwhile,legalaidcentres–funded

bythestate–havebeensetupunderthelocaljusticebureaus,aimingtohelptheneedy.Someof

thebiglawfirms,suchasDacheng,King&WoodMallesons,AllBright,andJingheng,nowemploy

thousandsoflawyers,andtheyhavespecificdivisionsofprofessionalpractice.However,PRC

lawyerswhopractiseinmedium–smalllawfirmstendtobe‘generalists’andundertakelitigation

(oftenbothcivilandcriminal)aswellascommercialandcorporatework.6Inthepastfewyears,however,thelargestfirms(especiallythosewithalargenation-widenetwork)

havefocusedmainlyoncommercial/corporateworkandrelatedcommercial/civillitigation,for

twoprincipalreasons:first,becausetheseremainthemostprofitablepractices;andsecondly,

because(aswillbefurtherexplainedlater)criminalcasesandadministrativelitigationcasestoa

largeextentremainlessrewardingfinanciallyandaremoreriskyfromaprofessionalpointofview,

andthustheyfailtoappealtomanysuccessfulandcapablelawyers.TheLawyersLawThedevelopmentofprivatefirmsandtheincreasingroleplayedbylawyersinthelegalsysteminthe

1990sledtotheadoptionin1996ofthenew‘LawyersLaw’.Thislaw(furtheramendedin2007)is

recognisedastherealfirst‘code’regulatinglawyersinthe‘newChina’.UndertheLawyersLaw,alawyerisdefinedas‘apractitionerwhohasdulyobtainedthelawyer’s

practisingcertificateaccordingtothelawandwho,bywayofacceptinganappointmentor

throughdesignation,provideslegalservicestoaconcernedparty’–averydifferentdefinition

fromthepreviousoneof‘workerofthestate’.TheLawyersLawalsostatesthat,intheirpractise,

lawyersmustnotonly‘abidebytheConstitutionandthelaw,andadheretotheethicsofthelegal

professionandpractisediscipline’,butalsothatthey‘shallbesubjecttothemonitoringbythe

state,thepublicandtheconcernedparty’.Nevertheless,Article3(4)oftheLawyersLawstatesvery

clearlythat‘alawyerpracticinginaccordancewiththelawshallbeprotectedbythelawandno

organisationorindividualmayinfringeuponhis/herlawfulrightsandinterests’.Inordertoqualifyasalawyer,anindividualmust‘upholdtheConstitution’andpassthestatejudicial

examination(since2002,Chinaholdsa‘unifiedbarexam’everyyearwhichopensthewaytoalllegal

professions).Theindividualisalsorequiredtohavecompletedafullyear’straininginalawfirm,and

similarlytorequirementsfoundinotherjurisdictions,isto‘[be]ofgoodconduct’.Thepractisingcertificateallowsthelawyertopractisenationwide,thatis,itisnotsubjecttoany

territoriallimitation.Moreimportantly,however,lawyerscannotpractise‘solo’andmustwork

onlythroughdulyestablishedlawfirms.Inaddition,theycannotworkformorethanonefirm.In

otherwords,thepractisingcertificatecannotbeusedbyalawyerunlesstheyareregisteredasa

practitionerwithalawfirm.Anyappointmentneedstobeacceptedbythefirmasawholeandfees

mustbecollectedbythefirm.Forthemuchofthe1990s,thelegalsystemwasnotverysophisticatedanditwaspossibleforalegalpractitionertomasterseveraltypesof

practice.Forinstance,China–whichisacivillawsystem–didnothavealawgoverningtheformationandoperationofcompaniesuntil1993,

nordidithaveacomprehensive‘ContractLaw’until1999,anditstilldoesnothaveaformalcivilcode.ATaleofTwoCities–theLegalProfessioninChinaDECEMBER2012

Atthesametime,thestateevaluatesandmanageslawyersthroughtheannualrenewalsystemand,

inaddition,requeststhatlawyerstobecomemembersofthelocalbarsothattheybecomesubject

tobarregulations.Onceregisteredasalawyer,theindividualissubjecttoayearlyrenewalsystemfortheirpractising

certificate.Thepractisingcertificatemayberevokedorcancelledifitwasprocuredthroughimproper

means(fraudorbribery),oriftheapplicantdidnotmeettheconditionsforbeingissuedalicence.The

assessmenttodeterminewhetheranindividualmeetstherequirementstoberegisteredasalawyeror

tohavetheirlicenserenewedfallswithinthepowersofthelocalbureauofjustice,ratherthanthebar

association.Thispeculiarfeatureofthelawyerlicensingsystemstillremainstodayundertherevised

2008LawyersLaw,althoughinotherrespects(suchastheproceduralrightsoflawyersincriminal

trials),the2008amendmentshaveimproved–atleastonpaper–thesituationoflawyers.Underthe2008LawyersLaw,lawyershaveadutyto‘safeguardthelegalrightsandinterestsof

theirclients’.Whenactingasdefencecounsel,theyaregivenbroadrightstopresentmaterialsand

evidence,andtoreview,extractandcopyfilesrelatedtothecaseevenwhenthecasematerialsare

stillunderreviewbytheprosecutor.Asaforementioned,administratively,theLawyersLawentrusts

theMoJ,and,inparticular,thelocaldepartmentofjusticeatcitylevel,withtheresponsibility

ofadministeringthelawyers’licensingsystem,assessingthequalificationsoflawyers,andtaking

disciplinaryactionsagainstthem.Ontheotherhand,thelocalbarassociationsaregiventhemore

limitedroleofrepresentingtheprofessionasawhole,carryingouttrainingactivitiesandhandling

professionalliabilityinsurancematters.Barassociationsarealsoempoweredtoissuefinesand

penaltiesifthelawyerswithintheirjurisdictionbreachthelocalbarassociation’sownrules.Inadditiontoexercisingcontroloverthelawyers,thejudicialbureausalsoexercisebroader

controloverlawfirmsbyrequiringthemtosubmitanannualpracticereportandtheresultsofthe

assessmentoftheirlawyers’practise.Lawfirmsarerequiredtosubmitabriefdescriptionofthemain

caseshandledanddescribeanyspecificissuesencounteredduringtheirpractiseinthepreviousyear.

Inaddition,lawfirmsaresubjecttotheannualregistrationrenewalsystem.Thesefeaturesofthe

LawyersLawallowtheexecutivebranchsubstantialcontroloverthelegalprofession.TheLawyersLawalsocontainsprovisionsfortheestablishmentofalegalaidsystem,allowing

individualsfreesupportfromaqualifiedlawyerincasesrelatedtofamilysupport,work-related

injuries,criminalactions,statecompensationclaims,orpaymentofpensionsfromdeceasedpersons.

EachlawfirminChinaisrequiredtoallocateanumberofdayseachyeartodischargingassignments

comingthroughthelegalaidsystem,andlawyerscangetallowancesfromthestatefortakingover

thesecases.Viewsdifferinthelegalcommunityonwhetherlegalaidcentreshavebeeneffectivein

increasingaccesstojustice.7FuHualing,forinstance,notesthatlegalaidcentresstillfacedifficultiesinpersuadingcourtstowaivecourtfeesevenforcasesthatqualifyfor

suchawaiver,andthatlawyersworkingforlegalaidcentresencountermoredifficultiesthanprivately-hireddefencecounselwhencollecting

evidenceinfavourofdefendants.Atthesametime,legalaidcentresarerecognisedascontributingtoanincreasedawarenessoftheimportance

ofthelaw,rulingacountryaccordingtolawandincreasing‘rightsconsciousness’(seeFuHualing,‘AccesstoJusticeandConstitutionalismin

China’,inBuildingConstitutionalisminChinabyStephanieBalmeandMichaelWDowdle(PalgraveMacmillan,2009)).DECEMBER2012ATaleofTwoCities–theLegalProfessioninChina

ChallengesfacingthelegalprofessionThechallengesfacedbylawyersinChinacanberoughlydividedintotwobroadcategories.Thefirst

categoryincludeschallengesfacinganylawyerpractisinginChinaandappliestocivil,commercial,

administrativeandcriminallawyers.Thesecondincludesthosechallengesparticularlyfacedby

lawyerswhorepresentcertaincategoriesofcases–mainlycriminalandadministrativecases.Category11.Constraintsfacedduetothestructureofthejudicialsystem

VariousChinesescholarshavenotedthat,asdesigned,thePRCjudicialsystemdoesnotensurethe

independenceofjudges.Thisextendsbothto‘internal’independence(ie,theabilityofthejudgesto

exercisetheirfunctionswithoutinfluencefromsuperiorsorfromhigher-levelcourts),and‘external

independence’,thatis,theabilityofthejudgeandofthecourtasawholetomakedecisionswithout

undueinfluencefromexternalbodies.Since2002,theJudgesLawofthePeople’sRepublicofChinahasmadesignificantprogressin

‘professionalising’itsjudges.Forinstance,allcandidatesarenowrequiredtopasstheunified

qualificationexamandtohavealawdegree–arequirementthatdidnotexistbeforethe2002reform;

andtherearetimidmovementstowardsreformofthefundingsystemofthecourts.However,there

aresignificantroadblocksremainingonthepathtoindependence.Forinstance,undertheOrganic

LawofthePeople’sCourtsofthePeople’sRepublicofChina,theadjudicationof‘significant,difficult

orcomplex’[sic]casesistakenawayfromthetrialjudgeandgiventoan‘adjudicationcommittee’

presidedoverbythecourt’sPresidentandcomposedofjudgeswhotypicallyaremoreseniorthanthe

onewhoheardthecase.Theadjudicationcommitteedecidesoncriminal,civilandadministrativecases.Whilethestatedintentofthelegislatorindesigningthissystemwastoensurethatyoungjudgescould

benefitfromtheopinionofmoreseniorandexperiencedones,especiallywhenfacingcomplexor

sensitivecases,thesystemhasseveralobvioussetbacks.First,thejudgescomprisingtheadjudication

committeereceiveonlyawrittenreportofthecasepreparedbythepresidingjudgeofthehearing,

andtherefore,theydonotbenefitfromtheactualexperienceofthetrial,theexchangesbetween

litigants,ortheargumentsmadebythedefenceandtheprosecution.Secondly,duetothespecial

roleplayedbythePresidentoftheCourt(whooftensitsalsoonthepoliticalandlegalcommittee

withinthelocalparty’scommission)8andtheimportanceoftheiropinionindecidingthecase,the

adjudicationcommitteecanbecomeavehiclethroughwhichlocalpoliticalinfluenceisexercisedon

theoutcomeofthecase.Inthesecircumstances,theargumentsandcounterargumentsmadebythe

lawyers(especiallythedefenceteamincriminaltrialsortheplaintiff’scounselinanadministrative

casewherethelocalgovernmentisbeingsued)mayloserelevancewhenthefinaldecisionismade.

AlloftheaboveislargelycriticisedbymanyChineseacademicsandpractitionersasasituationin

which:acasemayhavebeenheardbutitdoesn’thaveaverdict;or,acasehashadaverdictbutit

didn’thaveatrial.Theselegalandpoliticalcommittees(ZhengfaWei)arepartofthe‘parallel’partystructurethatcanbefoundatvirtuallyeverylevelof

governmentinChina.Theyareinchargeof‘coordinating’andsupervisingtheworkofthepublicsecuritydepartment,thepeople’s

procuratorate(ie,theofficeoftheprosecutor),thepeople’scourtsandthejudicialdepartmentwithintheadministrativeprecinct.Although

thereisnolegalrequirementthatcourtsimplementdecisionstakenbytheZhengfaWei,itwouldbepoliticallydifficultforajudgetodisregard

theopinionofsuchapowerfulbody.ATaleofTwoCities–theLegalProfessioninChinaDECEMBER2012

Inaddition,duetothefactthatadministrativeprecinctsalmostinvariablycoincidewithjudicial

precincts,thelocalpeople’scongressappointalljudgesworkinginthecourtswithinthesame

precincts.Courtsrelyalmostentirelyonthelocalgovernmentfortheirfunding,personneland

resources.Thiscreatesadditionaldifficultiesforlawyersarguingacaseinwhichlocalinterestsare

atstake,oracasedeemedpolitically‘sensitive’fromtheperspectiveofthelocalgovernmentorthe

localparty’sorganisation,which–asexplained–overseestheoveralladministrationofjusticeatlocal

levelthroughthepoliticalandlegalcommittee.Finally,lowercourtsoftenseek‘guidance’ondifficultorsensitivecasesfromupperlevelcourts,

sometimesinordertoexcludetheirownresponsibilityandkeepingoodtermswithupper-level

politicalauthorities.Thisiscalled‘reporttotheauthorityinadvance’.Inthismanner,therecanbe

adiscussionwhichtranscendsthetrialjudgeonwhetheranaccusedisguiltyornotandonwhatthe

penaltyshouldbe,leadingtotheinvolvementoftheupperlevelcourtinacasethathasnotyetbeen

appealed.Oneofthereasonswhylowercourtjudgesseektheopinionof,andsupportofhigher

levelcourtsintheirdecision,isthatjudgesarerewardedfinanciallyaswellascareer-wisebasedon

acomplex‘points’system,withpointstakenawayforthejudgewhoserulingsareoverturnedon

appeal.Asaresult,agreatmajorityofjudgments–especiallythoseincriminalcases–areconfirmed

onappeal.Itbecomesmoredifficulttogetjudicialremediesduringtheappealphaseiftheappeal

judgehasbeeninvolvedinearlierdiscussionsanddecisionsaboutthecasewhenitwasbeing

examinedbythelowercourt.Decisionsonimportantcasesthatgainedtheattentionofgovernment

authoritiesandsocietyaremostlikelytobeupheldonappeal.2.Casefilingsystem

Anotherstumblingblockforlawyersistheabilitytogettheircaseheard,duetotheexistenceof

the‘filingdivision’ineachpeople’scourt.InChina,thecourtsadoptanexaminationandapproval

systembeforetheyacceptacaseforhearing,whichisdifferentfromtheregistrationsystemin

placeinmanyothercountries.Asaresult,thecourtcanrefusetohearacaseevenwhenthereare

substantiverightsatstake.Thecase-filingdivisionworksasadefacto‘filter’forlawsuits.Itisseparatefromthetrialdivision

andgivesjudgessubstantialdiscretioninacceptingorrejectingcaseswithoutaffordingany

accessoraccountabilitytothepublic.Althoughitplaysmanyotherfunctions(eg,itcanavoidthe

irrationalmisuseoflitigationrights),somehavenotedthatthecasefilingdivisionsmayconstitute

anobstructiontotheadministrationofjusticebecauseitmaydepriveplaintiffsoftheirrightto

proceduralandsubstantivedueprocess.9Thishappensoftenincasesdeemedasbeing‘politically

sensitive’,andalsocaseswhereagovernmentdepartmentoranadministrationisnamedas

defendant,aswellasin‘collectiveactions’(ie,actionswithmultipleplaintiffs)ormasstortcases.

ThelackofclearanduniformguidanceundernationallaworSupremePeople’sCourt

interpretationsaboutwhattypesofcasescanbefiledcreatesadditionaldifficultieswhencourtshave

joinedwiththegovernmenttoproducedocumentsstatingthatcertainkindsofcasescannotbeSee‘JusticeWithoutJudges:theCaseFilingDivisioninthePRC’byNanpingLiuandMichelleLiu,UCDavisJournalofInternationalLaw&

Policy,2011.DECEMBER2012ATaleofTwoCities–theLegalProfessioninChina

heard,ashappenedinthenationalisationofcoalminesinShanxi.Inothercases,courtshaverefused

toacceptcases,effectivelygrantinglegalprotectiontolocaldominantplayers.10SpeakingtolitigatorsinChina,oneofthemostfrequentlyheardcomplaintsistheinabilitytofilea

lawsuitduetothedecisiontakenbythefilingdivision.Thereseemtobefewavenuesforlawyersto

circumventthedecisionofthefilingdivisionandhavetheircaseheard.Thisremainsparticularlytrue

foradministrativelitigationcases.3.Lackofadministrativeautonomyforlawyers

Asaforementioned,lawyers,lawfirmsandbarassociationsaresubjecttotheadministrationand

supervisionofthelocaljudicialbureau.AlthoughtheChairandtheVice-ChairoftheACLA–as

wellasthevastmajorityofthelocalbarassociations–arelegalpractitioners,thejudicialbureau

maintainssubstantialcontrolovertheprocessofselectingthebarassociations’leadershipthrough

variousmeans,asevidencedbytherecentBeijingBarAssociationcase.11AnexperimentinShenzhen

andGuangzhou(twoofthemost‘liberal’citiesinChina)inwhichlawyerscouldfreelyelecttheir

ownrepresentativesinthebarassociationwaslatersuspended.Thelocalbureauofjusticeisalso

abletoexercisesubstantialcontroloverlawyersandlawfirmsthroughtheannualreportingand

registrationrenewalsystem.Althoughdenialofrenewalorwithdrawalofalicenceforalawfirm

orlawyerconstituteexceptionsratherthantherule,theyplayanimportantdeterrentroleforany

lawfirmwishingtomaintaina‘goodrelationship’withthelocaljusticebureau(onwhichitrelies

fortheabilitytocontinueoperating)aswellaswiththebarassociationitself.Moreover,theneed

toverifywhetheranapplicationmeetsthe‘goodconduct’requirementundertheLawyersLawcan

alsoinvolveareviewoftheapplicant’spoliticalviewsandcompliancewithstate-endorsedpolicies

suchastheone-childpolicy.Morerecently,theMoJhascirculatedanoticeremindingalllocalbar

associationstorequirelawyerswhointendtoapplyfororrenewapractisingcertificatetoswear

allegiancenotonlytotheConstitutionandtothelaw,butalsototheparty.Theconsequenceofa

failuretotaketheoathaccordingtotherequirementsareunclear.Inpractice,however,manylocal

barassociationsarenotenforcingthisrequirement.TheMoJanditslocalcounterpartsconductperiodical‘campaigns’against‘unethical’behaviour

inthelegalprofession(ie,behaviourwhichviolatesthelawsandregulationsrelatedtoalawyer’s

professionalconduct)–whichmayaffecthundredsoflawyers.Forinstance,inoneparticular

campaign,in2004,bytheMoJandtheACLAagainstunethicalbehaviourinthelegalprofession,

severalhundredlawyerswerepunished;someofthemwerealsopunishedforoffencessuchasbribing

judgesandfalsifyingevidence.Occasionally,however,localbureausofjusticehavealsopunished

lawyersforbehaviourthatwasnotclearlysanctionedunderthelaw.12Inrecentyears,thepowerto

imposecertainsanctionsonlawyershasprogressivelyshiftedtowardsthebarassociations,buttheMoJ

anditslocalcounterpartsretainthepowertosuspendthelicenseordenyrenewal,whichisseenas

themostserioussanction.10AnexampleisthecasehandledbyoneoftheauthorsinwhichthedescendantsoftheMingDynastyCellarsuedtheYibinCitygovernment(Sichuanprovince)andWuliangyeGroup(alargestate-ownedcompany).Afternumerousattempts,thelocalcourtsrefusedtohearthecase,whichc