The Chinese Legal Profession

The legal profession in the People’s Republic of China has undergone a remarkable transformation since the initiation of economic reforms and the opening of the legal system in the late 1970s. From a profession that was virtually eliminated during the Cultural Revolution, with no more than a few thousand lawyers in the early 1980s, the Chinese legal profession has expanded to include over 650,000 practising lawyers as of 2024, with an estimated total of 750,000 to 800,000 including those in related legal fields. The development of the profession has been shaped by the tension between the demand for a competent and independent legal profession to support economic development and the party-state’s insistence on political control over the legal system. The Lawyers Law of the People’s Republic of China, first adopted in 1996 and amended in 2001, 2007, 2012, and 2017, provides the basic regulatory framework for the profession, defining the rights and obligations of lawyers, the structure of law firms, and the relationship between the profession and the state. The Ministry of Justice exercises supervisory authority over the profession at the national level, while the All China Lawyers Association (ACLA) serves as the national self-regulatory body.

The Unified Legal Professional Qualification Examination

Entry into the legal profession in China is controlled by the Unified Legal Professional Qualification Examination (fa lü zhi ye zi ge kao shi), formerly known as the National Judicial Examination (guojia sifā kaoshi). The examination was established in 2002 to create a unified qualification standard for judges, prosecutors, and lawyers, replacing the separate examination systems that had existed previously. The examination is administered annually by the Ministry of Justice and is widely regarded as one of the most difficult professional qualification examinations in the world, with pass rates historically ranging from 10 to 20 percent. The examination covers 18 subject areas, including constitutional law, criminal law, civil law, administrative law, procedural law, commercial law, and legal ethics. Candidates must hold a bachelor’s degree (in any field, though a law degree is most common) and must not have a criminal record. Prior to 2018, candidates from non-law backgrounds were eligible to sit the examination, but the 2018 reform restricted eligibility for the unified legal professional qualification examination to those holding a law degree (or a non-law degree with a Master of Laws or Juris Master degree), raising the educational threshold for entry into the profession. The examination is a rigorous test of legal knowledge and analytical ability, and preparation typically requires six months to a year of intensive study. The low pass rate reflects both the difficulty of the material and the state’s interest in controlling the size and quality of the legal profession.

The Lawyers Law and the Regulation of the Profession

The Lawyers Law of 1996, as amended, defines a lawyer (lüshi) as a practitioner who has obtained a lawyer’s practice certificate pursuant to the law and provides legal services to the public. The 2007 amendments established a clearer tripartite structure of rights and obligations: the rights of lawyers in the exercise of their professional duties, including the right to meet with clients, review case materials, and investigate and collect evidence; the obligations of lawyers to clients, the court, and the state; and the protections against interference with the lawful practice of law. The 2012 amendments strengthened the role of the All China Lawyers Association in professional regulation and expanded provisions on legal ethics. The 2017 amendments introduced provisions addressing the establishment of Party committees in law firms, reflecting the party-state’s determination to assert political leadership over the profession. The Ministry of Justice, through its provincial and local bureaux, exercises supervisory authority over lawyers and law firms, including the issuance and renewal of practice certificates, the investigation of professional misconduct, and the imposition of administrative sanctions. The Ministry’s regulatory approach has oscillated between liberalisation and tightening of control, with periods of relaxation followed by renewed emphasis on political orthodoxy and the requirement that lawyers operate within the boundaries set by the party-state.

The All China Lawyers Association

The All China Lawyers Association (ACLA) is the national professional association of lawyers in China, established in 1986. Membership is mandatory for all practising lawyers. ACLA’s governance structure includes the National Lawyers Congress as the highest authority, a Council elected by the Congress, and a Standing Committee that exercises powers between Council sessions. The ACLA is responsible for formulating professional standards and ethical rules, organising continuing legal education, protecting the lawful rights of lawyers, promoting international exchanges, and providing guidance on professional conduct. The Association operates under the supervision of the Ministry of Justice, and its leadership has historically been closely aligned with the Ministry. ACLA has adopted a Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct for Lawyers and a set of Rules on Punishment for Violations of Professional Ethics. The Association’s disciplinary committees investigate and sanction lawyers for breaches of professional rules, with sanctions ranging from a reprimand to the recommendation of suspension or revocation of the practice certificate. The dual regulatory structure — with the Ministry of Justice exercising ultimate authority and the Association operating under its supervision — reflects the Chinese model of managed self-regulation, in which professional autonomy is constrained by state oversight.

The Structure of Chinese Law Firms

Chinese law firms have evolved from the state-owned law firms (guojia suǒ) that dominated the profession in the 1980s and early 1990s to a structure dominated by partnership firms (hehuo suǒ) and sole practitioner firms (gèrén suǒ). State-owned firms were the product of the socialist legal system and were affiliated with the Ministry of Justice or local judicial bureaux. The Lawyers Law of 1996 authorised the establishment of partnership firms, and the 2001 amendments required state-owned firms to convert to partnership or sole practitioner status, completing the transition to a market-based structure. Partnership firms may be either general partnerships, in which partners bear unlimited joint and several liability, or limited liability partnerships, introduced by the 2007 amendments, which limit the liability of partners who are not directly responsible for a negligent act. The largest Chinese law firms — including Yingke (Yingke Law Firm), Zhong Lun (Zhong Lun Law Firm), JunHe (JunHe Law Firm), and King & Wood Mallesons (created by the merger of King & Wood and Mallesons Stephen Jaques in 2012) — employ hundreds or thousands of lawyers and maintain offices in major international financial centres. Yingke, with over 10,000 lawyers and offices in more than 80 cities worldwide, is among the largest law firms globally by headcount. These large firms serve domestic and international corporate clients in areas including mergers and acquisitions, capital markets, intellectual property, and dispute resolution. The growth of the corporate legal sector has been one of the most significant developments in the Chinese legal profession, driven by China’s economic expansion and the increasing complexity of commercial law and regulation.

Political Control and the Party’s Role

The legal profession in China operates within a framework of pervasive political control. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) maintains influence over the profession through multiple mechanisms, including the requirement that law firms with three or more CCP members establish Party committees; the 710 Proclamation (or “Document 9”), which directs lawyers to uphold socialist rule of law and prohibits advocacy of constitutional democracy, judicial independence, or universal values; and the threat of administrative sanctions or criminal prosecution for lawyers who engage in political activism or represent clients in politically sensitive cases. The case of the so-called “709 crackdown” of 2015, in which over 300 human rights lawyers, paralegals, and family members were detained, prosecuted, or subjected to administrative detention, demonstrated the limits of professional independence in the Chinese system. The CCP’s Central Political and Legal Affairs Commission (zhengfawei) coordinates the work of the policing, prosecutorial, judicial, and legal professional organs, ensuring that legal practice aligns with party policy. Lawyers who represent petitioners (shangfangzhe), criminal defendants in political cases, or activists challenging government actions face heightened risk of investigation, prosecution for subversion of state power or picking quarrels and provoking trouble, and disciplinary sanctions including disbarment.

The Judiciary and Judicial Reform

Judges in China are appointed under the Organic Law of the People’s Courts and the Judges Law. The pre-2014 system was characterised by low entry standards, inadequate salaries, heavy caseloads, and limited professional prestige. The 2014-2016 judicial reform programme, initiated by the Third and Fourth Plenums of the 18th CCP Central Committee, sought to professionalise the judiciary by establishing a system of centrally managed judicial personnel, introducing a quota system for judges (yuane guanli), increasing judicial salaries, and enhancing judicial accountability. The reform established the provincial-level centralised management of judicial personnel, meaning that judges in local courts are appointed, evaluated, and disciplined by provincial judicial authorities rather than by local governments, reducing local protectionism and interference. The judge quota system reduced the number of judges in many courts by 30 to 40 percent, with only the most qualified judges receiving appointment to the new quota positions. Judicial salaries were substantially increased to deter corruption and attract talented legal professionals. Despite these reforms, the Chinese judiciary remains subordinate to the party-state: the adjudication committee (shenpan weiyuanhui) within each court oversees significant cases, and party leadership over judicial work is maintained through the court’s party group and the party’s political and legal affairs committees at each level.