Discussing defense strategies alongside professional ethics mainly highlights several easily overlooked points: professionalism is the premise of professional ethics; without professional ability, taking on cases beyond one's control may lead to wrong strategies and directions, which is the greatest irresponsibility to the client; lawyers must not abandon professionalism and responsibility by blindly obeying the client's demands in defense paths; lawyers should handle cases solely for the client's benefit, not to highlight or hype themselves, which aligns with professional ethics; lawyers should not use malicious attacks on colleagues as a defense method.

To facilitate the explanation of viewpoints, I use a comparative method to illustrate different defense strategies of various lawyers and the professional ethics they reflect.

Since the previous article stated this is a fictional story, I still hope colleagues and relevant parties view the following content as fiction, purely for business discussion purposes.

1. A lawyer's professionalism determines the client's life or death.

When I was inadvertently entrusted to intervene in the case, it was the height of summer in July, with scorching sun. The Li case, which became a nationwide entertainment topic, was hotter on the internet than the weather.

At that time, the case had entered the court phase. The Li family, dissatisfied with the statements made by the two defense lawyers, believing they caused negative effects, specially hired a lawyer with media experience to act as the Li family's spokesperson, releasing daily updates on the case progress and reporting the Li family's views and resistance actions. The two defense lawyers still handled the case but could no longer speak for the Li family externally; instead, they set up a Weibo account to represent themselves. Several other lawyers involved in the case also voiced their opinions, making the case even more tumultuous.

Outsiders watch the spectacle, insiders see the tricks. Beneath the noisy surface, as the first and second pre-trial meetings and the trial proceeded, non-professional forces were continuously fermenting until they erupted, causing fatal damage.

Several segments vividly portray issues with lawyers' professionalism.

Regarding the exclusion of illegal evidence: At the pre-trial meetings and trial, the first defendant's lawyer filed motions to exclude evidence, mainly arguing that the second defendant (an adult) was tortured and beaten; also claiming their client was interrogated at night, constituting torture. However, beyond these claims, they never submitted any related applications. During a break, everyone gathered in the restroom to rest, smoke, and chat. I took the opportunity to remind them that although we had different views, if they wanted to exclude illegal evidence, why didn't they request the interrogation records from the detention center or ask the investigating police to appear in court? The two lawyers simultaneously asked, "Can we even request the police to appear?" You see, the defense lawyers didn't even know their basic rights.

Regarding injury appraisal: They even suspected in court that the injuries on the victim's face and body were self-inflicted, not caused by the defendants, to fabricate a false case, so the wounds should be fresh, not old. But faced with the contrary forensic conclusions from the public security forensic doctor, they neither requested the appraiser to appear in court nor consulted expert witnesses, nor had the forensic doctor from the social appraisal agency testify in court to determine whether the injuries were new or old. I had too little time in the restroom to remind them, and didn't know how to.

Regarding the victim and witness appearing in court: To prove the victim's side was at fault and reduce our client's sentence, at the first pre-trial meeting, I applied for the victim to testify because there were multiple suspected lies in her report, increasing the defendant's responsibility, including claiming to be a white-collar worker and student, a regular bar patron, hiding her part-time job; claiming to be a virgin (even lying about this, showing contempt for forensic doctors); claiming she was dragged and ran at Jin Ding Xuan, but in fact those people were beaten and fled, with no time to care for her. I also applied for the waiter Z to testify because he, to please the VIP Li, indeed intended to introduce prostitution, but the plan failed at various stages, and the plot got out of control. No matter how smart the five defendants thought they were, their social experience was too limited, leading to the mistaken belief that the bar was a dedicated prostitution venue and that the resident ladies should obey waiter Z's arrangements without reason to object.

Unexpectedly, before the prosecutor expressed an opinion, the two lawyers unanimously opposed my application, saying the victim and witness waiter had always lied, so their testimony would be unfavorable to us. I said precisely because they lied, we should bring them to court to expose their lies; we didn't expect them to tell the truth, just to reveal the falsehoods. But they insisted on their opinion, and the judge listened with interest, as if their opinion mattered. You see, they couldn't distinguish the roles of prosecution and defense witnesses, nor understand cross-examination, yet took on such a complex case.

Regarding questioning during court investigation, I give examples of several lawyers.

When the prosecutor questioned Li, Li said after entering the room, he played with his phone for a while, then fell asleep, did nothing, and when he woke up, everyone was done and left. But the first defense lawyer asked if the bottle of foreign liquor waiter Z gave him was already opened. It was opened, half full. The defense lawyer believed the half bottle was spiked with aphrodisiacs, causing subsequent events. So was Li hypnotized or drugged? Did he fall asleep later? Obviously, the defense lawyer and client were out of sync.

The lawyer continued questioning each defendant, asking as minors who went in to drink and sing, what song did victim A sing, was it a love song? Several lawyers didn't understand why this was asked or what songs should be sung in a KTV. Later it became clear this was an important defense point: the victim, as an adult, often sang love songs to seduce minors, combined with aphrodisiacs, harming the children. Of course, he also asked each defendant other questions, like whether victim A touched them. The defendants were confused, not knowing whether to say yes or no, staring blankly, and eventually all said they forgot.

In questioning technique, the second defense lawyer asked his client Li, after sitting down, did you drink first or did the escort girls arrive first? The victim's lawyer quickly objected, saying the term "escort girls" was inappropriate and insulting to the defendants. The presiding judge reminded the defense lawyer to watch his wording. The lawyer agreed. After a few seconds of silence, he asked Li again, was it the escort girls who arrived first or the drinking? I saw the prosecutor, judge, and court police quickly lower their heads and cover their faces with their hands.

When choosing a defense strategy and setting defense objectives, lawyers should focus on the key facts, evidence, and legal principles relevant to the case—prioritizing what truly matters while letting go of minor details. The emphasis should be on meticulously scrutinizing critical elements that directly impact sentencing and conviction, as well as thoroughly assessing whether the prosecution’s evidence is robust enough to support its claims. At the same time, less significant, inconsequential details can—and often should—be overlooked, as they won’t sway the ultimate outcome. It’s important to note that the stringent evidentiary standards in criminal proceedings don’t mean every piece of evidence must meet an overly rigid threshold. Instead, the focus is primarily on evidence that genuinely affects the determination of guilt or punishment. As long as these core pieces of evidence are logically connected and form a coherent chain, that’s sufficient—not every minor or irrelevant detail needs to be examined in isolation. Legally speaking, the strictness applies specifically to instances of illegality that are explicitly prohibited by law and rise to a certain severity level. It does not extend to ordinary procedural flaws that could potentially be corrected or substantiated by other credible evidence. Unfortunately, however, the lawyers in this case failed to zero in on the most critical issues. Instead, they became fixated on peripheral, trivial matters, allowing these distractions to dominate their defense strategy. As a result, their arguments ended up sounding disjointed and disconnected from the prosecution’s central evidence—or even worse, from the actual legal framework governing the case. This ineffective approach ultimately contributed to the severe consequences the defendant faced in the first-instance verdict. Looking ahead, the second trial presented a critical opportunity for the defense team to make a complete pivot, shifting their strategy to more effectively advocate for mitigating factors that could have significantly reduced Li’s sentence. Yet, unfortunately, the same pattern of misjudgment persisted, squandering the last chance to mount a more compelling and impactful defense.

During a mid-trial recess, I advised Li’s mother that, in my opinion, this case had virtually no chance of being overturned. I suggested she encourage her son to plead guilty while there was still time—doing so could significantly reduce his sentence. But before I could finish speaking, she interrupted me, launching into an impassioned monologue about how wronged we were, how cruel the other party’s lawyer must be, and how innocent their child truly was, despite being framed by the opposing side. By the time she’d finished, I was completely at a loss for words, so I excused myself, claiming I urgently needed to use the restroom—and promptly made a hasty exit. This mother was simply too forceful; she refused to listen to her own lawyer’s well-intentioned advice and instead tried to take control of the conversation herself. Later on, not only did she personally attack me in the media—but even more surprisingly, she teamed up with an outside lawyer to launch a coordinated public assault, accusing me outright of being a former police officer who was secretly working behind the scenes to help the defendant plead guilty.

When choosing a defense strategy and setting defense objectives, lawyers should focus on the key facts, evidence, and legal principles relevant to the case—prioritizing what truly matters while letting go of minor details. The emphasis should be on meticulously scrutinizing critical elements that directly impact sentencing and conviction, as well as thoroughly assessing whether the prosecution’s evidence is robust enough to support its claims. At the same time, less significant, inconsequential details can—and often should—be overlooked, as they won’t sway the ultimate outcome. It’s important to note that the stringent evidentiary standards in criminal proceedings don’t mean every piece of evidence must meet an overly rigid threshold. Instead, the focus is primarily on evidence that genuinely affects the determination of guilt or punishment. As long as these core pieces of evidence are logically connected and form a coherent chain, that’s sufficient—not every minor or irrelevant detail needs to be examined in isolation. Legally speaking, the strictness applies specifically to instances of illegality that are explicitly prohibited by law and rise to a certain severity level. It does not extend to ordinary procedural flaws that could potentially be corrected or substantiated by other credible evidence. Unfortunately, however, the lawyers in this case failed to zero in on the most critical issues. Instead, they became fixated on peripheral, trivial matters, allowing these distractions to dominate their defense strategy. As a result, their arguments ended up sounding disjointed and disconnected from the prosecution’s central evidence—or even worse, from the actual legal framework governing the case. This ineffective approach ultimately contributed to the severe consequences the defendant faced in the first-instance verdict. Looking ahead, the second trial presented a crucial opportunity for the defense team to pivot entirely, shifting their strategy to advocate more effectively for mitigating factors that could have significantly reduced李某’s sentence. Yet, regrettably, the same pattern of misjudgment persisted, squandering the last chance to mount a more compelling and impactful defense.

II. Agreeing with the parties' mistakes only harms them.

The lawyer lacked sufficient professional expertise but still took on a major, complex case—driven both by the lawyer's desire to land a high-profile case and by the client's own motivations.

Li's guardian, deeply concerned for their child, firmly believes their son is the best in the world—and refuses to heed the advice of a level-headed lawyer. Instead, they insist on pursuing an outright not-guilty defense, which ultimately leads the previously assigned lawyer to wisely withdraw. Meanwhile, the lawyer who steps in afterward ends up blindly following the client’s wishes, abandoning professional judgment—or perhaps never even possessing it in the first place. What appears at first glance to be diligent service to the client actually backfires, doing more harm than good.

During a mid-trial recess, I advised李某’s mother that, in my opinion, this case had virtually no chance of being overturned. I suggested she encourage her son to plead guilty while there was still time—doing so could significantly reduce his sentence. But before I could finish speaking, she interrupted me, launching into an impassioned monologue about how wronged we were, how cruel the other party’s lawyer must be, and how innocent their child truly was, despite being framed by the opposing side. By the time she’d finished, I was completely at a loss for words, so I excused myself, claiming I urgently needed to use the restroom—and promptly made a hasty exit. This mother was simply too forceful; she refused to listen to her own lawyer’s well-intentioned advice and instead tried to take control of the conversation herself. Later on, not only did she personally attack me in the media—but even more surprisingly, she teamed up with an outside lawyer to launch a coordinated public assault, accusing me outright of being a former police officer who was secretly working behind the scenes to help the defendant plead guilty.

Later, I came into contact with many people from the entertainment industry and learned about their high-profile cases—like that of a celebrity who was detained for tax evasion. Through these experiences, I gradually realized that the issue wasn’t inherently theirs, nor was it a matter of personal character. Instead, it reflected deeper systemic problems within the entertainment industry itself. These individuals have spent their entire lives—from as young as their teens or early twenties—growing up in this unique world, absorbing its distinct rules and culture along the way. As a result, they often remain remarkably innocent and self-contained, living day by day in an otherworldly, almost heavenly existence that feels detached from reality. When challenges arise, however, they typically lack even the most basic awareness of legal rights or responsibilities. Instead, their go-to responses boil down to two familiar patterns: either turning to supernatural forces or spiritual gurus for guidance—and, alternatively, relying on personal connections or leveraging their ties to power. Legal professionals specializing in the rule of law rarely enter the picture; at best, they might ask a lawyer to issue a public statement—or perhaps try to pull some strings behind the scenes.

Parties involved come from all walks of life—be it ordinary citizens, government officials, wealthy business leaders, or even celebrities—each with their own deeply ingrained legal perspectives that shouldn’t be imposed on others. For instance, after many high-ranking officials have fallen from grace, the first thing they often say is, "I didn’t hire a lawyer; I trusted the organization." It’s as if lawyers and the organization are somehow at odds—a mindset that fails to recognize the shared commitment to the rule of law within the legal profession. That said, such attitudes among clients are often shaped by personal limitations or unavoidable circumstances, and they’re entirely understandable. Yet, precisely because lawyers are entrusted as protectors of their clients—and even as symbols of the rule of law—it’s precisely *not* their role to rigidly adhere to their own legal stance. Instead, shouldn’t lawyers strive to find creative ways to help their clients navigate these challenging situations? However, if a lawyer resorts to unethical tactics—perhaps bending professional boundaries or even compromising their expertise—in order to secure a high-profile case, simply to please an uninformed or inexperienced client without proper legal knowledge or judicial insight, then they’re betraying their own professional integrity. Ultimately, this not only harms the client but also undermines the very principles of justice they’re sworn to uphold.

During the first trial of the Li case, several baffling developments emerged. I’ll highlight just one or two to give you a sense of how the lawyers performed.

One instance involved Li's mother, who, backed by her lawyer, publicly appealed to the media and engaged in petitioning activities, demanding that the court hold an open trial for Li's case. She even submitted a formal application to the court, sending shockwaves through the legal community. Naturally, a spokesperson for the Li family has also been cooperating with this effort. Yet, given that rape cases—and especially those involving underage defendants—are explicitly mandated by law to be heard behind closed doors, why has such an impossible, unreasonable, and unlawful request emerged, despite the lawyers' support?

One option is to publicly file a police report with the support of a lawyer, even lodging a petition directly with the Ministry of Public Security—creating quite a stir in the process and demanding that the bar owners be arrested for allegedly organizing prostitution and engaging in extortion. While such actions are certainly within the bounds of citizens' rights, if accusing others of running a prostitution ring simultaneously implicates your own group in collective acts of prostitution, wouldn’t that potentially constitute the crime of "gathering a crowd for immoral purposes"? This would, however, contradict the lawyer’s narrative—which insists the children involved are innocent and blameless.

During the second trial of Li's case, surprises kept unfolding. Li's guardian, determined to secure the most suitable defense attorney for the second-in-command adult co-defendant, ended up hiring five different lawyers—each replacement further delaying the proceedings. Let’s take a look at how the finally chosen lawyer proceeded. One attorney approached the case with remarkable dedication, meticulously obtaining and presenting the hotel receipt for the room where the incident allegedly took place. He argued in court that since the charge did not include the cost of condoms, it logically followed that the defendant could not have engaged in sexual intercourse with the victim. Yet, this reasoning left everyone puzzled, as no evidence in the entire case had ever suggested the use of condoms that night. After all, does the absence of condoms automatically disprove the charge of rape? Meanwhile, another lawyer stepped forward forcefully, making two bold requests during the trial. First, he asked the court to retrieve the 2,000 yuan in cash Li allegedly gave to the female victim, A. His reasoning: the fingerprints on the cash might reveal whether this was indeed a case of prostitution—or even whether the bar owner had shared the proceeds with A. Hearing this, the presiding judge’s eyes widened in disbelief. "After all this time," he muttered, "how on earth are we supposed to find those 2,000 yuan now?" The second request was equally dramatic: the lawyer demanded that the court collect cigarette butts found in the hotel room where the alleged crime occurred. His argument? All co-defendants claimed Li entered the room and even smoked—but Li himself reportedly never touched a cigarette. By retrieving these butts, the lawyer reasoned, if no DNA matching Li’s was found, it would expose the other defendants as liars, rendering their testimonies entirely unreliable. At this point, the judge’s brow furrowed deeply, clearly lost in thought amid the courtroom chaos.

When I accepted the case, it had already been pending in court for more than ten days. My client was overwhelmed by conflicting public opinions and intense, personal pressure from those around them—feeling completely lost and unsure whether to pursue a not-guilty defense or argue for a lighter sentence. Still, they expressed their willingness to trust my professional judgment, emphasizing that they’d follow my advice above all else. I explained that I’d need to thoroughly review the case files first, and only after meeting with your son could I determine whether to go for a not-guilty plea or advocate for a reduced sentence. If at any point you’re uncooperative—or if you initially agree but later change your mind—I’ll be free to terminate our agreement whenever necessary.

After reviewing the case files, I noticed that although all five individuals have recanted their earlier statements, the chain of evidence outlined in the first part of this article remains virtually irrefutable. Now, it all comes down to how Yi Sheng himself chooses to present the facts and respond to the charges. Following our meeting, Yi Sheng clearly acknowledged that his initial confession during the investigation phase was accurate, but later changed his testimony due to other circumstances—and he’s now willing to admit his mistakes and accept responsibility. As a result, after consulting with his guardian, everyone has agreed to pursue a defense strategy focused on arguing for a lighter sentence.

However, the situation at the time was quite complex. On one hand, public opinion had already "taken sides," with the image of the five individuals firmly refusing to admit guilt widely circulating. On the other hand, the guardians were also under certain pressures, and Yi Sheng himself faced challenging circumstances while in custody—conditions that raised serious concerns. Because of this, it wasn’t appropriate to immediately share our defense stance publicly. Instead, we decided to stay away from the media, keeping quiet for now, and wait until the trial begins before making our position clear.

As the situation unfolded, sure enough, the client couple twice reconsidered, claiming they were under immense pressure and now insisted on switching to an "not guilty" defense. Each time, I clearly stated: "I simply can’t argue for ‘not guilty’ in this case—there’s no way I can mount a credible defense or even protect your interests. If you still insist, feel free to come straight to the office right away and formally terminate our agreement." After carefully weighing their options, they eventually reversed course again, ultimately deciding that my suggested approach was indeed the best path forward. And so, despite all the twists and turns along the way, they persevered—with both ups and downs, but staying true to the plan until the very end. (To be continued)