"Zhao Yunheng on Grand Defense" Column
Criminal defense—a profession that people both love and loathe. We love it because it’s deeply tied to our belief in the rule of law—it embodies a yearning for justice, challenges authority, and demands the fiery passion, courage, and wisdom of a true fighter. Did you know how many aspiring lawyers pledge themselves to becoming criminal defense attorneys while still on campus? Or how many give up lucrative salaries simply to stay true to this heartfelt calling?
Opening Remarks: A Comprehensive Discussion on Effective Defense from the Perspective of "Grand Advocacy" – By Huan Welcome, friends from the legal community, to Dacheng Criminal Law Committee’s online live lecture series. This is a multi-part series featuring contributions from many esteemed colleagues across our network. As the secretary’s office has entrusted me with delivering the first session, I’d love to hear your thoughts and engage in dialogue if time permits. Today, we’ll delve into the concept of "effective defense," approached specifically through the lens of "grand advocacy." At its core, this is less about specific tactics or technical skills and more about methodology and mindset—a philosophical rather than a practical discussion. But why this topic? Recent high-profile cases, such as the punishment handed down to swimmer Sun and the tax-related penalties faced by a well-known actress, underscore the critical importance of proper thinking in handling complex legal matters. Indeed, sound reasoning often proves far more crucial than mere experience or specialized techniques. Consider, for instance, the stark contrast in outcomes between the Li et al. rape case—where differing parental perspectives and varying legal strategies among attorneys ultimately shaped vastly divergent verdicts. ### I. Grand Advocacy vs. Effective Defense In these unprecedented times marked by the ongoing pandemic, we’ve witnessed an increase in cases involving the crime of endangering public safety through dangerous methods. Specifically, this refers to situations where confirmed or suspected COVID-19 patients disregard quarantine protocols, potentially leading to the spread of the virus. If you were representing one of these individuals, how would you approach crafting your defense strategy? I believe there are at least three key considerations: #### 1. **Legal Framework and Interpretation** First, from a criminal law perspective, it’s essential to clarify what constitutes a "confirmed case," "suspected case," or "pathogen carrier" under the law. Here, two critical questions arise: - **A. Medical Standards and Regulatory Compliance:** What are the official medical criteria used to classify cases? Are these standards aligned with national guidelines? As of March 4, the National Health Commission had already released the seventh edition of its diagnostic and treatment protocol, which has been revised multiple times since its inception. For example, initial testing relied heavily on rapid antigen kits to determine positivity, but later, CT imaging was introduced—and eventually removed altogether. Meanwhile, local authorities have even adjusted their own criteria, sometimes resulting in discrepancies in the number of confirmed cases reported. Given this evolving landscape, which standard should be applied? More importantly, does this particular diagnostic protocol qualify as a legally recognized benchmark under criminal law? - **B. Judicial Analysis and Expertise:** Beyond the formal criteria, the actual process of determining whether someone qualifies as a "suspected" or "confirmed" case rests squarely with individual hospitals. But how reliable and accurate is this assessment process? Do hospitals possess the necessary judicial qualifications—or, more precisely, do they have the authority to conduct forensic-style evaluations? - **C. Proving Actual Transmission:** Finally, establishing causality becomes even more challenging when dealing with asymptomatic carriers or individuals who may have been exposed long before symptoms emerged. How can investigators rule out alternative transmission routes and ensure that the link between the suspect and any potential victims is both direct and exclusive? In some cases, formal forensic analysis might be required—similar to how injury assessments or psychiatric evaluations of criminal responsibility are conducted today. These questions not only test your awareness of current pandemic-related news but also your ability to critically analyze and interpret complex legal scenarios. #### 2. **Local Regulations and Policy Responses** Next, it’s vital to examine how different regions have responded to similar cases. Pay close attention to variations in response levels, specific prevention measures, and definitions of "public spaces." By studying recent examples from across the country, you can gather valuable insights and draw meaningful comparisons. For instance, consider how retired officials at the hall-level were treated when they resisted pandemic control efforts. Have there been swift judicial rulings on such cases? Are there any landmark precedents published jointly by the Supreme People’s Court and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate? If so, what were the key facts of those cases, and how did courts assess the elements of subjective intent and objective behavior? Did the defendants need to have already caused actual transmission of the virus to be convicted, or could they still face charges based solely on their actions? And finally, how were sentences ultimately determined? This step highlights your capacity to apply fundamental defense strategies effectively while navigating the nuances of regional policies and legal frameworks. #### 3. **Balancing Public Health Needs with Public Sentiment** Lastly, effective defense must strike a delicate balance between addressing the urgent need to contain the pandemic and addressing the legitimate concerns and anxieties of the general public. After all, how a case is handled can significantly impact both the trial outcome and the overall effectiveness of the defense. For example, if a defendant’s actions genuinely sparked widespread panic among the population, admitting fault and voluntarily accepting appropriate sanctions might be the most pragmatic course of action—even if criminal prosecution isn’t strictly necessary. In many instances, administrative remedies alone could suffice, sparing the individual from criminal liability altogether. This final consideration underscores your ability to think strategically about the broader implications of your client’s case, ensuring that your defense aligns not just with legal principles but also with societal expectations and realities. ### What Is "Effective Defense"? So, what exactly constitutes "effective defense"? Simply put, it goes beyond merely fulfilling basic professional obligations—it involves going above and beyond to anticipate every possible angle, explore every relevant detail, and present a robust, comprehensive argument that aligns with both legal standards and the best interests of your client. When lawyers demonstrate diligence, thoroughness, and creativity in their approach, leaving no stone unturned, their efforts can directly influence the court’s decision-making process—and ultimately lead to a favorable outcome for their clients. That’s why some refer to effective defense as "due diligence defense"—a term that emphasizes the lawyer’s commitment to adhering to ethical and professional standards while actively working toward securing the most advantageous result for their client. Conversely, if a lawyer fails to meet these benchmarks—if they overlook critical details, fail to challenge flawed evidence, or neglect to communicate effectively with their client—then their defense cannot truly be considered "effective." Such lapses not only undermine the integrity of the legal process but also jeopardize the client’s rights and interests. It’s worth noting, however, that even when a lawyer executes their duties impeccably, the court isn’t obligated to accept their arguments or follow their recommendations. While this reality doesn’t diminish the value of effective defense, it does remind us that the ultimate success of a case depends largely on the court’s interpretation of the law and its willingness to consider the defense’s perspective. Some scholars and practitioners have mistakenly equated "effective defense" with "successful defense"—a notion that implies the sole purpose of advocacy is to achieve a favorable verdict. Yet this perspective is both misleading and counterproductive. After all, even the most meticulously crafted defense can fall short if the court ultimately reaches a different conclusion. To illustrate this point: imagine a scenario where a lawyer successfully argues for a reduced sentence—but the court acquits the client entirely instead. In such a case, despite the lawyer’s diligent efforts, the client remains innocent under the law. Clearly, the defense wasn’t "effective" in the sense of achieving the desired outcome; rather, it was effective in upholding the client’s rights and ensuring due process. In essence, effective defense isn’t about controlling the court’s decision—it’s about providing a strong, principled, and well-reasoned argument that respects both legal norms and the unique circumstances of each case.Failing to fulfill one's duty constitutes ineffective defense. Yet, even when a lawyer does perform their duties diligently, focusing excessively on minor details while losing sight of the core arguments or the original intent of the case can also lead to an ineffective defense. I won’t go into further detail on that. So, what exactly is "big defense"? It’s about adopting a broader perspective, thinking more expansively, and taking a higher vantage point—stepping back from the specifics of the case itself to examine the underlying issues and anticipate future developments. It means looking beyond the law to understand criminal policies, assessing the broader legal environment, both domestically and internationally, and then tailoring your strategy accordingly. Armed with this comprehensive approach, you employ every lawful method available, leaving no stone unturned, to defend your client effectively and address the case’s deeper, systemic problems at their root—ultimately safeguarding your client’s maximum rights and interests. Take, for instance, the earlier example involving the crime of endangering public safety through dangerous methods—it was still a relatively conventional defense. Now, let me offer another case: Li Yuehua, a grassroots traditional Chinese medicine practitioner in Wuhan, found himself caught up in controversy during the pandemic. Lacking formal medical qualifications, he treated numerous patients, leading authorities to label his practice as illegal and potentially subject him to administrative or even criminal liability. If charges were formally filed, judges would likely follow the letter of the law and rule him guilty. After all, judges may simply interpret the law literally, unaware of the human element behind it. But here’s where the real challenge lies: isn’t there more to consider? Shouldn’t we weigh his genuine academic background in traditional medicine against the lack of official certification? What about the remarkable outcomes of his treatments and his tangible contributions to combating the epidemic? And shouldn’t we also evaluate whether his modest earnings from these practices truly amount to illicit profit-making? Moreover, we must factor in public sentiment and the fact that certain aspects of the situation remain scientifically unclear. By presenting these nuanced arguments, we might convincingly demonstrate that his actions lacked "social harm." If, after doing all this, the defense remains solidly grounded within the bounds of conventional legal reasoning, it’s still considered a "standard" defense—not yet the "big defense" I’m talking about. But if, instead, you leverage platforms like Weibo to rally public support for Dr. Li, turning the tide of public opinion into a powerful force for change, *that* would qualify as "big defense." Or perhaps you could reach out to respected figures in the medical community, inviting them to affirm that Dr. Li inherently possesses all the essential qualifications of a physician and that his treatment protocols are not only sound but have already yielded impressive results. Even if he technically lacks formal credentials, such evidence could ultimately exonerate him, proving that authorities failed to recognize and harness the invaluable expertise of grassroots healers at a critical moment—thus benefiting society as a whole. In essence, by balancing merits against perceived flaws, and ultimately concluding that Dr. Li’s actions posed no significant threat, the legal system might decide against pursuing further action altogether. That, indeed, would be the epitome of "big defense." Finally, if you manage to gather widespread public support and compile expert medical opinions, then take the initiative to formally submit these materials to senior government officials, urging them to consider not just the legal implications but also the broader political and societal impacts—now that’s what I call "big defense." In summary, based on this real-world example, achieving effective defense goes far beyond merely mastering the relevant statutes or judicial interpretations. It requires a much wider, more holistic perspective. In other words, "big defense" takes the principles of effective defense—a meticulous, courtroom-focused approach—and elevates them by incorporating strategic advocacy efforts that extend well beyond the confines of the courtroom itself. Now, let’s revisit the first part of our discussion: Effective defense is the baseline responsibility every lawyer must uphold; it operates strictly within the realm of legal procedures. But "big defense," as its name suggests, represents an advanced, elevated version of effective defense. Compared to standard legal advocacy, it demands a higher level of strategic thinking, a broader scope of analysis, and a more diverse array of tools and techniques—all aimed at delivering a truly transformative defense experience. **II. The Mindset Behind Big Defense** Ultimately, whether someone excels in their field hinges entirely on their mindset. After all, mindset shapes both professional success and personal fulfillment. No matter how talented or driven an individual may be, if their thinking remains flawed or misaligned, their entire journey will inevitably falter. Take, for instance, the swimmer mentioned earlier: despite possessing natural talent and the ability to outpace others significantly, if they stubbornly cling to their own self-centered worldview, disregarding rules and dismissing the professionalism of international referees, they’ll find themselves swiftly pushed aside from the competitive stage altogether. Without respecting established norms and embracing the spirit of collaboration, even the most gifted athletes risk fading into obscurity. Similarly, being a great lawyer isn’t just about memorizing statutes or delivering eloquent speeches—it’s about cultivating the right mindset. A lawyer who boasts exceptional rote memorization skills or dazzling rhetorical abilities doesn’t automatically translate into courtroom prowess. And even if they do excel in court, that alone doesn’t guarantee ultimate victory or the successful protection of their clients’ legitimate interests. Sadly, we’ve witnessed many otherwise promising attorneys whose careers fizzled out prematurely because their mental frameworks couldn’t keep pace with the complexities of their profession. The Li case serves as a stark reminder of this reality. In essence, mindset and methodology are inseparable—much like the relationship between "dao" (the way) and "shu" (the technique). While mastering the "dao" provides the foundational clarity needed to navigate complex legal landscapes, acquiring practical "shu"—or specific operational skills—becomes considerably easier once that philosophical foundation is firmly in place. **(1) The Most Fundamental Mindset: Holistic Professional Competence** Only through consistent engagement with criminal law, regular exposure to criminal cases, and active participation in criminal law circles can a lawyer truly grasp the intricacies of criminal defense and evolve into a specialized, top-tier criminal defense attorney. On the flip side, lawyers who try to wear too many hats—juggling civil litigation, non-litigation matters, and even unrelated business ventures simultaneously—often end up muddling their thinking. Such "jack-of-all-trades" attorneys may appear versatile on the surface, but their inability to focus deeply on any single area leads to confusion in their approach, blurring the lines between different types of legal practice. This kind of cognitive disarray manifests clearly in various facets of criminal defense, including—but certainly not limited to—the fundamental distinctions between adversarial versus collaborative strategies, understanding whether both sides should be viewed as equals or if one party holds inherent legal dominance, determining who bears the burden of proof, and deciding whether the evidentiary standard leans toward "preponderance of evidence" or demands "beyond a reasonable doubt." For example, this confusion often surfaces early in the process—specifically, during the initial stages of case intake. As we’ve discussed repeatedly, communication with clients plays a crucial role: in civil cases, the client typically maintains the upper hand, whereas in criminal cases, the lawyer must assert a stronger, more proactive presence.Time-based billing and contingency fee arrangements are mostly suited for civil cases, rarely applicable in criminal matters—and so on. Confusion in thinking can also manifest in the choice of defense strategies. I’ve noticed that lawyers who typically don’t handle criminal cases often resort to networking and resource mobilization when they take on such cases occasionally. Why? Because they feel that even basic needs—like securing a meeting with their client—are impossible through regular channels. They may not even know where the special investigation team is stationed, leaving them with no other option but to rely on personal connections. In contrast, seasoned criminal defense attorneys naturally know how to navigate these situations effortlessly. For instance, in a case from Shaoxing, several days had passed since the incident occurred, yet the family had already hired a lawyer. Unfortunately, this lawyer was completely clueless about the detainee’s location, the investigating authority handling the case, or even the specific charges against the suspect. Left at a loss, the lawyer could only turn to intermediaries—but even that ultimately failed to resolve the issue. Only after we intervened did everything fall into place within minutes, thanks to a simple 110 call. Why does this kind of disparity exist? Fundamentally, it stems from local lawyers approaching criminal defense using a civil and commercial mindset. This highlights the critical need for specialization in criminal law practice. Moreover, criminal defense specialization doesn’t just require mastering legal knowledge specific to criminal law—it also demands a broader understanding of related fields, along with the ability to draw upon life experience and everyday common sense. While legal experts excel in their specialized domains, it’s only highly professionalized lawyers who possess the comprehensive, practical skills needed to assess situations adeptly, adapt flexibly, and leverage diverse expertise and insights to secure favorable outcomes in court. In this sense, while some countries allow their top lawyers to rise to the highest political office—such as becoming president—legal scholars or academics often end up serving merely as advisory experts on technical legal matters. **A. Stay Attuned to Criminal Policies and Relevant Developments** Specialization isn’t merely about deepening one’s grasp of theoretical legal principles or textbook knowledge; it’s about cultivating a holistic system of expertise coupled with the ability to apply it effectively. Having strong legal foundations is essential, but it’s still a significant step away from delivering outstanding defense performance. Beyond mere book smarts and legal acumen, lawyers must develop the habit of staying informed about current criminal policies and related news—such as major policy shifts in key areas announced by central authorities, as well as speeches delivered by leaders of relevant government departments. After all, criminal policy serves as the guiding spiritual principle behind judicial activities, often shaping legislative changes and influencing the issuance of judicial interpretations. Sometimes, in practice, lawyers’ ability to interpret and apply criminal policy precedes the formal release of official judicial guidelines—meaning that judges aren’t always waiting for precise legal definitions before making rulings. For example, during recent financial reforms targeting industries like securities and insurance, clear criminal policies were already in place, though certain implementing judicial interpretations hadn’t yet been published. As a result, courts swiftly began applying existing case precedents—such as those involving crimes like manipulating the securities market using insider information—before the corresponding judicial guidelines were finalized. Criminal policy isn’t always confined to official documents or public statements, either. It can also surface in unexpected places, including news reports. Take, for instance, intellectual property offenses: given the upcoming surge in such cases due to new trade agreements with the U.S., the criteria for identifying and prosecuting IP-related crimes have undergone significant revisions. Over the next six months to a year, we’ll likely see a substantial increase in criminal cases tied to IP violations. Lawyers should keep an eye on both domestic and international developments, analyzing how these trends might impact their criminal defense strategies. Criminal policy also shapes the present and future of our work in criminal defense. Consider, for example, the ongoing anti-corruption campaign, which has prompted sweeping reforms in jurisdiction over official misconduct cases. Crucially, the newly established National Supervisory Commission isn’t classified as a judicial body, meaning lawyers now face stricter limitations on their involvement in investigative processes. This shift significantly complicates defending clients accused of official crimes. Meanwhile, in more routine criminal cases, there’s a growing emphasis on ensuring accountability for wrongful convictions—a policy that underscores the importance of vigilance regarding procedural irregularities and miscarriages of justice. Lawyers must clearly distinguish between individual errors committed by investigators and systemic failures within the broader framework of law enforcement agencies. Additionally, in pilot programs focused on plea bargaining and plea agreements, the policy encourages open negotiations between prosecutors and defense attorneys. This creates fertile ground for adopting innovative defense tactics, such as plea deal negotiations, which can prove highly effective in resolving cases efficiently and favorably.
Chapter 50 | The Diversity of Non-Discrimination Approaches
How can we ensure procedural justice by excluding illegally obtained evidence?
Closing remarks for the "Zhao Yunheng on Grand Defense" column
Ideals will gradually become reality.
Chapter 60 | The Reversal of a Mafia-Related Case
Court Removes "Black Hats" — A Behind-the-Scenes Account.
Chapter 59 | Witnesses and Financial Guarantees in Mafia-Related Cases
How can a defense strategy be crafted to minimize the risk of ending up with "neither money nor assets"?
Chapter 58 | Can All Assets Be Confiscated in Organized Crime Cases?
Evil forces ≠ organized crime; investigation, freezing, and seizure do not necessarily mean full confiscation.
Chapter 57 | The line between forming an evil force and not quite crossing it can be razor-thin.
These "points" of gang-related crimes that cannot be ignored.
When will the "trump card" of illegal procedures be played?
Chapter 55 | Creative Legal Arguments in Cases of Bribery with Physical Goods
Can counterfeit or fake alcohol be conclusively identified? And how should authentic versus counterfeit items in circulation be distinguished?
Chapter 54 | Does an Official Commit a Crime by Partnering in Business with Others?
The ups and downs of when civil servants are strangely labeled as committing crimes for engaging in business ventures!
Chapter 53 | The "Twin Fortresses" in Bribery Cases
Blind actions taken before an investigation could lead to unwarranted blame.
Chapter 52 | Does a Romantic Relationship Affect the Determination of Bribery?
Can a special relationship substitute for the exchange of power and money?
Chapter 51 | Surrounding Wei to Rescue Zhao and Attacking East While Feigning West
When relatives are jointly involved in a case, how can one party ensure their full protection?
Chapter 49 | Overly Honest State-Owned Enterprise CEO Accused of Abuse of Power
Whether they're corporate executives or private-sector entrepreneurs, everyone must enhance their compliance awareness to avoid "taking the blame."
Chapter 48 | Can Business Leaders Escape the Vortex of Loan Fraud Charges?
While the financial vortex cannot be stopped overnight, the expectation of criminal accountability must not remain absent for too long.
In practice, the benchmark for determining whether a virtual invoice constitutes a crime is whether there was an intent to fraudulently obtain tax revenue.
Criminal legal risks shareholders may face when withdrawing their capital contributions
Chapter 45 | Is Accepting Property and Withdrawing from the Auction a Crime?
"There is an essential difference between the criminal and non-criminal aspects of bid-rigging and auction collusion."
Chapter 44 | Are Collusive Auctions and Collusive Bidding the Same Thing?
The criteria for identifying collusive auctions should be clearly distinguished from those for collusive bidding, to avoid wrongful criminal prosecutions.
A company's "original sin" requires not only legal defense but also addressing the underlying substantive disputes tied to the case context.
Criminal Legal Risks to Watch Out for When Renting Commercial Properties
Chapter 41 | A Blackmail Case Without a Victim
The absurd spectacle of the judiciary unnecessarily meddling in common internal corporate disputes.
Chapter 40 | Government Compensation Promise Turns Out to Be the Reason for a Scam
Only the stability of government credibility, combined with the growing compliance awareness of businesses themselves, can jointly optimize the business environment.
Chapter 39 | Presumption of Innocence: The Chinese Version of the Simpson Wife-Killing Case
"The Application of 'Exclusion of Illegally Obtained Evidence' and 'Reasonable Doubt' in Major Cases"
Chapter 38 | Ghost Defense or Reasonable Doubt
Determining the Second-Instance Defense Strategy Path for an Intentional Homicide Case
Chapter 36 | A Business Warfare Tale of Killing with Another’s Hands
Sharing Experiences in Successfully Representing Criminal-Civilly Intersecting Cases
Chapter 35 | Several "Bizarre" Aspects of a Bank Chairman's Corruption Case
In the context of a stringent regulatory environment in the financial industry, professionals must exercise caution and thoroughness, carefully considering every aspect—from ensuring formal compliance to proactively mitigating risks.
Chapter 34 | Accidentally Involved in Insider Trading Charges
Defenses of Not Guilty and Reduced Sentencing in Practical Cases of Insider Trading Crimes
Case-Based Legal Explanation—How to Understand "Manipulating the Securities Market by Exploiting Information Advantages"
Chapter 32 | The Psychological Warfare in Defense
Defense may involve psychological博弈 dynamics and corresponding coping strategies.
Chapter 31 | Practical Standards for Effective Defense (Part 2)
What constitutes a competent courtroom defense? What are the standards for defending death penalty cases?
Chapter 30 | Practical Standards for Effective Defense (Part 1)
Six aspects of pre-trial preparation are essential prerequisites for achieving an effective defense.
Chapter 25 | Low Margins but High Volume—or Niche Expertise (Part 2)
Take, for example, taking on a case that is about to go to trial. In a typical defense—perhaps even a perfunctory, textbook "syllogistic" defense (no prior criminal record, first offense, and a good attitude toward admitting guilt)—the court would proceed with the standard trial process, deliver the verdict, and wrap up the case within about a month. However, if you invest significant time and effort into identifying flaws in the prosecution’s case, gathering new evidence, and promptly filing motions to subpoena additional evidence or challenge the admissibility of certain materials—the court will likely notice the issues at hand. As a result, the judge may schedule a pre-trial conference based on the lawyer’s reasonable requests. If the first pre-trial meeting doesn’t fully resolve the outstanding concerns, and despite the lawyer’s persistence, a second or even third session might be necessary. Only after these discussions would the court finally set a date for the formal trial hearing.
Chapter 26 | What Does Procedural Defense Argue?
There are plenty of articles on procedural defense available in the market, most of which focus on specific operational techniques rather than delving into the underlying principles. In my view, when it comes to procedural defense, there are several fundamental issues that need clear clarification—otherwise, they could significantly undermine the effectiveness of the defense strategy. First, procedural defense is pervasive and accompanies every stage of the entire defense process. Many people, including myself when I was younger, once dismissed procedural defense as insignificant—or at best, believed it only mattered during court hearings. Later, during the early years when the exclusionary rule for illegally obtained evidence was just gaining traction, procedural defense surged in prominence. Yet again, most folks mistakenly equated procedural defense solely with the effort to exclude such evidence. However, procedural defense clearly encompasses far more than just addressing illegal evidence.
Chapter 23 | Should Parties Be Encouraged to Study Law?
Here, the "parties involved" refer to suspects or defendants who are currently undergoing investigation, prosecution review, or trial following a criminal case. When we talk about these parties "studying law," we mean their efforts to learn legal principles during these critical stages of the legal process. Criminal defense lawyers often encounter clients during meetings who ask them to purchase and deliver legal textbooks for study—or even claim they’ve already acquired materials and begun independently learning key areas like criminal law and criminal procedure, using their newfound knowledge to discuss strategies with the lawyer in preparation for their defense. But is it truly beneficial for a defendant to start studying the law while still in detention, equipping themselves with legal tools to defend their own case? Lawyers should carefully consider this question, as it touches on both the practicality and ethical implications of such an approach.
Chapter 24 | Low Margins but High Volume or Niche Expertise (Part 1)
Criminal defense lawyers often grab attention because they frequently handle high-profile cases, making them a much-discussed and debated group within the legal community. In the past, the criminal defense world was divided into various "schools" or "factions"—a distinction that some lawyers adopted as their own unique approach, while others viewed it more critically. Fortunately, plenty of online resources already cover these historical nuances, so we won’t delve into them here. Instead, let’s focus on the issue of professional practice styles—styles that transcend mere allegiance to specific "schools." The reason this topic is worth exploring isn’t about whether individuals favor one style over another, but rather about helping young lawyers navigate and make informed choices in their careers. After all, a lawyer’s style can manifest in countless ways: for instance, when analyzing case details, some adopt a bold, straightforward approach, while others prefer a meticulous, nuanced method. Similarly, in terms of professional confrontation strategies, some lawyers take an aggressively assertive stance, while others opt for a more measured, strategic approach.
Chapter 22 | Can Criminal Cases Be Investigated and Evidence Collected?
The entire Criminal Procedure Law revolves around the central concept of evidence—essentially encompassing its acquisition, preservation, and utilization for both defense and prosecution. Indeed, in criminal cases, every stage—from investigation and prosecution review to trial and defense—is fundamentally about identifying and scrutinizing evidence. According to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law, public security agencies, as investigative authorities, are naturally authorized to gather and examine evidence. Similarly, the procuratorate and courts, as judicial bodies, also have the power to conduct such investigations. But can lawyers themselves investigate and collect evidence? The answer is yes. Yet, many lawyers hesitate—or even refuse—to engage in this crucial task. At the root of this reluctance lies a fundamental misunderstanding of the legal procedures governing lawyers' ability to gather evidence. As a result, significant questions—and concerns—still linger regarding this essential procedural right.
Chapter 21 | How Criminal Defense Lawyers Review Case Files
Handling criminal cases invariably requires reviewing case files—this process can rightly be called a lawyer’s fundamental skill. However, some case files are exceptionally thick and incredibly complex, leaving even the most experienced lawyers feeling overwhelmed after just half a day of sifting through them. In fact, when lawyers encounter dozens or even hundreds of criminal case documents at once, many find themselves utterly stumped, as if trying to swallow an elephant with nothing but fleas—utterly clueless about where to begin. In reality, while lawyers must remain patient and carefully review the materials multiple times, they also need to adopt the right approach. A well-thought-out method can significantly enhance efficiency and yield better results with less effort. Based on personal experience, here are some practical tips for effectively reviewing case files: First, start with the litigation documents—use a structured, outline-based approach. In criminal cases, these legal documents not only include the "Indictment"
3. The media exists to serve the case, not the lawyers. This case has been quite intriguing when it comes to the lawyers’ attire. During the pre-trial conference and the courtroom proceedings, everyone opted for casual wear—think T-shirts and relaxed tops—likely due to the sweltering heat. I was the only one wearing a formal white shirt with a tie, though I skipped the suit jacket altogether. Yet, throughout this period, several other lawyers kept popping up on camera, giving multiple interviews or even posting videos on social media platforms—only to appear in full, polished suits and dress shoes. Attending court in casual clothes while donning formal attire for media appearances is certainly something worth pondering. After all, these outward displays are always backed by corresponding inner behaviors. That’s the key point I’d like to emphasize here.
Chapter 20 | How Lawyers Handle Clients' "Reversals of Testimony"
Some young lawyers often ask: What should they do when their clients decide to "change their statements" during a case? They feel deeply concerned, unsure of how to handle such situations. In criminal cases, it’s quite common for suspects or defendants to retract their initial statements. Lawyers who lack extensive experience sometimes—even out of a genuine desire to help overturn the verdict—actively and casually encourage their clients to change their testimonies. Unfortunately, this approach not only fails to achieve the intended outcome but also exposes them to significant professional risks. More often, however, lawyers hesitate to confront the issue altogether, either because they’re worried about their own legal liabilities or fear that backing down might jeopardize the overall success of the case. In reality, as long as they thoroughly understand the case details and manage the situation carefully, they can navigate these challenges effectively.
When discussing defense strategies alongside professional ethics, we primarily highlight several often-overlooked perspectives: Professionalism is the foundation of ethical practice—without strong professional skills, taking on cases that are beyond your grasp could lead to flawed strategies and misguided approaches, ultimately placing the client in the most irresponsible position. Lawyers must never compromise their professionalism or sense of responsibility by blindly complying with clients' or parties' demands when it comes to the defense strategy. Moreover, lawyers should always prioritize their clients' interests above all else, avoiding the temptation to promote themselves or even exploit their cases for personal gain—this is the true essence of professional ethics. Lastly, lawyers should refrain from employing malicious tactics to attack their peers during legal proceedings. To clearly illustrate these points, I’ll use a comparative approach.
Scan the QR code to follow the official account
First release update time:
Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday
Follow us
Xinglai Compliance
Starrise Law Firm : 17th Floor, East Section, China Resources Building, No. 8 Jianguomen North Avenue, Dongcheng District, Beijing Tel:010-64011566 Email:contact@xinglailaw.com Powered by 300.cn