In many cases, including the high-profile Li某某 case, I’ve noticed that when clients lead their lawyers and the lawyers defend strictly according to the clients’ instructions, the outcomes often fall short—leaving clients deeply dissatisfied with their attorneys.

The parties may first be concerned with the approach the case will take, the possible outcomes, and what work plans or response strategies the lawyer has prepared. A lawyer with strong legal expertise doesn't necessarily earn the trust, confidence, or approval of their clients. Lawyers handle cases with diligence and dedication, investing considerable effort—yet even after a judgment is delivered, clients may not necessarily be satisfied. Therefore, it is crucial for lawyers to understand how to navigate the process—from initial consultations and negotiations, through establishing a client relationship, to navigating the challenges of multiple litigation stages—and ultimately ensuring the successful completion of the entrusted task.

At the core of our service philosophy, the customer is king—after all, lawyers, as service providers, must wholeheartedly safeguard the interests of their clients. However, when handling specific cases, civil lawyers and criminal lawyers should approach their relationships with clients differently. For non-litigation projects and civil lawsuits, clients have clear needs and a single, well-defined objective. All legal services are tailored specifically to meet the client’s requirements or achieve their goals, with lawyers often adapting more closely to the client’s preferences and characteristics. In criminal cases, the objective—or rather, the subject of dispute—is fundamentally different from non-litigation or civil matters. Criminal defendants often struggle to clearly define what they want to achieve through litigation, typically holding only a strong, heartfelt desire to clear their names, receive lighter sentences, or reunite with their families as soon as possible. Lacking expertise in legal judgment, litigation experience, or the ability to gather and present evidence, they are unable to effectively guide their lawyers during the case—and unlike civil litigants, they can’t engage in an equal dialogue with their attorneys.

From another perspective, civil and commercial court rulings affect only economic factors—and at most, one’s reputation. Even if the outcome is unfavorable, it can often be reversed through mechanisms like retrials. However, criminal cases directly determine a person’s freedom and even their life. Once someone is imprisoned and unable to escape, or worse, sentenced to death, those consequences are irreversible. Even if judicial authorities later correct a wrongful conviction after ten years, the lost freedom and life cannot be regained. Finally, there’s one more key distinction: in civil and commercial cases, a lawyer’s stance and views must align completely with the client’s interests. But in criminal cases, lawyers are free to express independent opinions—often leading to situations where the lawyer and client deliberately collaborate, presenting entirely opposing arguments in court.

So, in criminal cases, I never advocate for formal equality with my clients, nor do I treat my clients' opinions as gospel. To truly maximize the client's interests, a criminal defense lawyer should adopt a professionally leading role—rather than acting as a hired hand simply following the prosecution's lead. Professionalism and accountability must "override" the client's wishes, allowing you to maintain your own independent judgment, tailored combat strategies, and proven methods—ensuring that you remain firmly in the driver's seat. Some lawyers, worried about losing cases, end up following their clients' lines of thinking from the very beginning. They do their utmost to meet every single one of their clients' demands—often without holding firm to their own defense strategies or refusing unreasonable or even illegal requests. At first glance, this approach may seem like "respecting" the client and willingly complying with their instructions. But in reality, the lawyer fails to exercise independent initiative or leverage their professional expertise. As a result, not only does the lawyer find themselves in a passive, subordinate position, but more critically, the defense ultimately deviates from sound professional judgment—leading to tangible harm for the client. And let’s not forget: the client is likely to remain dissatisfied as well. In many cases, including the high-profile Li某某 case, I’ve observed that when clients lead their lawyers and the lawyers defend strictly according to the clients’ instructions, the outcomes often fall short—leaving clients deeply dissatisfied with their attorneys.

In the initial stage of establishing a client-lawyer relationship, this professionally driven approach first manifests itself in conducting case discussions at the lawyer's office—particularly because it touches on the client's psychological concerns, especially when dealing with entrepreneurial clients or family members of high-ranking officials. If the client is involved in civil, non-litigation, or even corporate-level psychology cases—and perhaps even a business owner—they’ll likely ask you to come to their office to provide your services. In reality, though, they haven’t taken the time to thoroughly investigate who you are or whether you’re truly worthy of their trust. Instead, much like in a traditional bidding process, they’ll simply sit back and wait for you to present your ideas and proposed solutions—often meeting with as many as ten or eight different lawyers in a single day—before finally deciding which one to hire. You're just an ordinary bidder—eight or nine times out of ten, you won't succeed. But even when you do win, it often leads to a submissive, compliant position. If you’re a genuine caller seeking help for the safety and well-being of your family or business, you’ll likely reach out well in advance to carefully research which lawyer would be the best fit. Once they’ve identified you as a top candidate, they’ll come straight to your door to enlist your services. This is one of the key differences between criminal and civil cases.

After accepting the request from family members or businesses, communication with the individual involved should be gradual, patient, and conducted methodically. For example, during the first meeting, you might encounter doubts about whether a lawyer can truly make a difference, as well as skepticism toward differing defense perspectives. To address this, lawyers must first prepare thoroughly in advance—anticipating the various scenarios that could arise in the case, identifying the potential charges, legal implications, and consequences associated with each scenario. They should also consider the possible outcomes of the case and clearly outline the unique role they can play. By staying fully informed and confident, lawyers will be ready to respond confidently and decisively to their clients’ questions and concerns—without hesitation or delay. For parties who frequently request meetings, if the case doesn't actually require it, you can suggest hiring a separate "life-visit lawyer" to facilitate alternating visits, thus avoiding unnecessary disputes over meeting frequency and preventing them from being put on the defensive. The parties involved requested that items be delivered and messages conveyed—but let’s not dismiss everything outright as illegal or unethical. There are plenty of legitimate ways to find creative, lawful solutions instead. Show the letter, but only read it aloud—do not pass it along. You can deliver a message, but keep it strictly outside the case—don’t cross the line or help fabricate false testimony.

The parties may first be concerned with the approach the case will take, the possible outcomes, and what工作方案 (work plans) or应对方案 (response strategies) the lawyer has prepared. Lawyers must diligently gather insights into the case through meetings, interviews, and other means, carefully dissecting complex issues to distill the core facts and key legal principles. This allows them to make informed, predictive analyses of the current situation and potential future developments. On this solid foundation, they can thoughtfully manage clients' expectations while leaving room for flexibility and adaptability. We must both give the parties confidence and courage, while also guiding them to temporarily let go of unrealistic fantasies and demands—and reminding them of the various possibilities throughout the case process, as well as the potential outcomes. When it comes to setting expectations, one can adopt three approaches: conservative, neutral, and optimistic. It’s important not to be overly pessimistic, as this could discourage the client about their future prospects, nor should you be too optimistic, leading the client to believe a perfect outcome is guaranteed—and inadvertently treating the best-case scenario as if it were your lawyer’s promise.

When determining the defense strategy for a case, lawyers must also guide their clients patiently, avoiding any adversarial conflicts—and instead leveraging their experience and expertise to gradually win over their clients. For parties taking incorrect approaches to their defense, corrections should be made through communication and persuasion. Alternatively, it could be suggested to adopt a strategy of tacit cooperation, where, while maintaining alignment in key areas, each party presents its own defense—for instance, if the defendant does not retract their initial statement and admits guilt, the lawyer can still argue for acquittal based on evidence rules, factual findings, or legal interpretations. These communication processes must be noted in the meeting minutes and submitted for the parties involved to sign. The parties are free to maintain their revised statements, dismiss the usefulness of their lawyers, or stick to their own unique perspectives—these can all be tolerated for now. Let them keep these differing views for now, and wait for the right moment before attempting to persuade them otherwise. For clients who are more assertive, tend to stick firmly to their own views, and may even assign specific tasks to their lawyers, a tailored approach is required. Some can be accommodated, while others require the ability to say no gracefully. If the client does not comply with the lawyer's professional guidance, they can first try another lawyer; if that doesn’t work, they can always come back later. If necessary, you’ll need to propose terminating the mandate so he can change lawyers. In summary, lawyers should be adept at guiding, persuasive, and maintaining a proactive stance. When necessary, be firm—this earns respect. The softer you are, the more likely you’ll be perceived as lacking confidence, leading to dissatisfaction.

In 2015, I took on a corruption case involving the secretary of the Political and Legal Committee, who also served as the director of the Public Security Bureau, accompanied by a young lawyer from our branch office. During the first meeting, the client sat back in the chair with eyes lowered and said, "I didn’t ask my family to hire a lawyer, let alone request a lawyer from Beijing. So what good could your lawyer possibly do?" I was first taken to Beijing for a lengthy interrogation, and then transferred back to my home province—both decisions made at the higher levels. No matter what expertise or strategies I tried, it all ended up being irrelevant. I’ve already mentioned earlier that we need to emphasize the law—at the very least, demand that the lower levels uphold it. The problems arose precisely because in the past, you didn’t enforce the law or value lawyers. It’s time to shift our approach. For instance, this recent meeting with your lawyer only became possible after we negotiated repeatedly with the Anti-Corruption Bureau—and even then, it happened shortly after the investigation began. Clearly, the legal framework is finally starting to make a difference. We may not be able to get you out, but if there are issues with the legal process, or if the facts and evidence are questionable, we can help you voice your concerns and mount a strong defense—either to secure a lighter sentence for you, or even to pull off a strategic move like "besieging Wei to rescue Zhao," helping your loved one—who’s also being held in custody—to be released sooner. After exchanging ideas for about half an hour—and especially after hearing several compelling examples, both positive and negative—the client’s eyes began to light up, while their posture gradually shifted from leaning back to sitting upright, then leaning forward, moving closer and closer face-to-face with us. Ultimately, they smoothly signed their authorization letter. Later, thanks to our efforts, he achieved the main goal—his wife, who had been accused of jointly accepting bribes worth over 4 million yuan, was given a suspended sentence. Up until now, he and his family have continued to stay in touch with me, discussing matters such as filing subsequent appeals. The young lawyer who initially struggled to handle the case alongside me—especially when confronted with a "high-ranking official"—gained invaluable experience from that ordeal. Since then, he has gone on to represent several high-profile cases, both independently and alongside me, including those involving provincial- and ministerial-level officials. Today, he has blossomed into one of the youngest leaders in the provincial bar association.

After obtaining the client’s confirmed authorization, if the client raises additional, off-case requests, the lawyer must balance addressing their legitimate emotional needs while carefully managing these extraneous demands. At the same time, it’s crucial to stay within legal boundaries, thoughtfully adjusting both the approach and the level of involvement—avoiding any actions that might cross the line. For instance, if a client seeks your help in navigating social networks or leveraging personal connections to gain access to influential figures, you can politely guide them by suggesting which department or official might actually be most effective—just enough to point them in the right direction without directly getting involved. After all, this is often how things work in China’s bureaucratic landscape. While you should empathize with the client’s situation, it’s important not to step into their efforts. Ultimately, whether their strategy pays off remains their own responsibility. However, if they stubbornly insist on pursuing “relationship-based” approaches—focusing solely on cultivating connections rather than engaging in professional advocacy, refusing to collaborate with the lawyer on strategic, evidence-based arguments, or even resisting efforts to pressure judicial authorities—you may encourage them to first attempt these methods independently. Let them take the lead and see where it leads. Chances are, they’ll soon encounter obstacles—or worse, unintended consequences—that will ultimately drive them back to seeking your expertise. Pushing too hard for their preferred approach at this stage could escalate tensions, erode trust, and even jeopardize the overall effectiveness of the case. Meanwhile, as a lawyer, you must clearly communicate the potential risks of delaying critical steps—and make sure to document these discussions thoroughly. In today’s digital age, platforms like WeChat have become essential tools for everyday communication, making it easy to capture and preserve key conversations for future reference.

Beyond being a legal advocate, a lawyer should also serve as an exceptional emotional healer—offering psychological guidance and support to suspects, defendants, and their families, gently easing their anxieties and helping them regain mental balance. Every time I travel for work, before and after meetings, evidence gathering, or court hearings, I make it a point to sit down with family members, patiently addressing their concerns, carefully evaluating their suggestions, and even stepping in to resolve the many secondary issues arising from the case—such as corporate crises, marital disputes (including whether to divorce), children being forced to drop out of school due to the case’s impact, elderly relatives facing life-threatening health challenges, or even desperate family members contemplating self-harm. Families often warmly welcome me by offering their finest wine and engaging in heartfelt conversations, simply because I’ve proven myself capable of resolving both case-related and broader, personal dilemmas during our interactions. These seemingly "non-work" tasks actually carry immense value—they not only bolster clients’ and their families’ confidence in the legal process but, more importantly, help them overcome deep-seated emotional barriers that could otherwise hinder their ability to move forward. This approach serves as a vital complement to traditional defense work, fostering a foundation of trust that is essential for effective collaboration. By building this rapport, lawyers can ensure that clients and their families remain fully committed to the defense strategy—preventing them from succumbing to impatience, falling prey to unscrupulous judicial intermediaries, resorting to risky tactics like tampering with evidence, or even engaging in unlawful protests that disrupt the lawyer’s carefully crafted defense plan. Ultimately, this compassionate, solution-oriented engagement benefits not only the case itself but also the well-being of the entire family, helping them navigate through uncertainty and emerge stronger on the path to a brighter future. Yet regrettably, some lawyers seem indifferent to their families’ needs, avoiding phone calls altogether or even shying away from face-to-face meetings with clients. They’re reluctant to engage meaningfully with families before and after critical court proceedings, leaving clients feeling confused, disconnected, and unsure about the progress—or lack thereof—of their cases. This lack of communication often leads to mistrust, as clients begin questioning whether their lawyers are truly doing everything possible. Worse still, it can push families into making hasty, ill-informed decisions driven by anxiety and desperation.

Additionally, there are many other critical issues related to communication and interaction with the client. Due to space limitations, these will be addressed separately in a future chapter—topics such as the aforementioned "psychological massage" issue, the client’s request to retract previous statements, disagreements between the client and their family, the client’s demand for public media attention, and more. In short, earning the client’s trust should always come first—but only if the lawyer possesses professional expertise, upholds ethical standards, remains committed to hard work, and engages in genuine, heartfelt communication. Above all, the lawyer must prioritize the client’s best interests, not merely the client’s personal opinions or desires.