Application by Lawyer Qin Weijin to the Ministry of Justice for Administrative Reconsideration

Applicant: Qin Weijin, male, born on December 17, 1962, citizen identity number: 450205196212170014, former head of Guangxi Qintong Law Firm, contact address: 7th Floor, Building 9, Jinshajiao Community, Chengzhong District, Liuzhou. Contact number: 13617725788.

Respondent: Department of Justice of the Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region. Address: No. 1, Beierli, Xinghu Road, Nanning, Guangxi. Legal representative: Li Daojun, Director-General.

Administrative reconsideration authority: Ministry of Justice of the People's Republic of China.

Requests for administrative reconsideration : 1. Revoke the Administrative Penalty Decision (Gui Si Fa Jue Zi [2026] No. 4) issued by the respondent; 2. Order the respondent to revoke the penalty of revoking the applicant’s lawyer's practice certificate and restore the applicant’s qualification to practice law; 3. Request that the reconsideration authority refer and send to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, in accordance with the law, the issue in this case concerning the conflict between Paragraph 2 of Article 49 of the Lawyers Law and the Constitution, Criminal Law, and Legislation Law, and initiate a record-filing review; 4. The respondent shall bear the administrative reconsideration costs in this case.

Facts and reasons

I. Basic facts

The applicant was formerly a lawyer practicing lawfully and the head of Guangxi Qintong Law Firm. For conduct of a personal nature constituting the crime of picking quarrels and provoking trouble, the Liuzhou Liujiang District People's Court sentenced him to two years and six months' imprisonment in its judgment (2024) Gui 0206 Xing Chu No. 342; the Liuzhou Intermediate People's Court dismissed his appeal and upheld the original judgment in its ruling (2026) Gui 02 Xing Zhong No. 4. The applicant has completed serving his sentence, and the criminal proceedings have concluded.

On August 20, 2026, the respondent imposed an administrative penalty revoking the applicant’s lawyer's practice certificate pursuant to Paragraph 2 of Article 49 of the Lawyers Law. The applicant believes that the basis applied in this decision conflicts with higher-level law and that the decision should therefore be revoked in accordance with the law.

II. The hierarchy of laws must not be breached

The hierarchy of legal effect in China is as follows: the Constitution is superior to the Legislation Law, Criminal Law and other basic laws, and basic laws are superior to ordinary laws. The Lawyers Law, as a law governing a specific area, must not conflict with the Constitution, Criminal Law or Legislation Law. The respondent imposed a penalty of permanently depriving the applicant of his professional qualification solely under Paragraph 2 of Article 49 of the Lawyers Law. The basis for its application is therefore questionable and its enforcement has an unsound foundation; the penalty cannot be upheld in accordance with the law.

III. The Constitution protects the right to work and the right to equality; a lifetime ban on practicing lacks a constitutional basis

The Constitution protects citizens' rights to work, choose an occupation and equality. The Constitution imposes stricter qualification restrictions on public officials, but does not authorize administrative authorities to impose a blanket lifetime ban on market-based legal services professions. The nature of the legal profession is the provision of legal services by means of professional skills; it does not inherently involve the exercise of public power. After completing their sentences, people can still earn a living through their skills in most ordinary professions; imposing a lifetime ban only on lawyers constitutes unequal treatment and is inconsistent with the spirit of equal protection under the Constitution. Whether a citizen may continue to work in a profession should be determined by professional competence, professional ethics and actual risk, rather than by permanently cutting off lawful employment opportunities solely on the basis of a past criminal sentence.

IV. The Criminal Law sets a clear limit on occupational prohibitions

, and the penalty in this case is manifestly excessive. Article 37-1 of the Criminal Law provides that, where a person commits a crime by taking advantage of the convenience afforded by their profession, or commits a crime in violation of specific duties required by that profession, a people's court may prohibit that person from engaging in the relevant profession for a period of three to five years, starting from the date the sentence has been served or the person is released on parole; where other laws or administrative regulations provide otherwise, those provisions shall apply. This article establishes a time-limited occupational prohibition as the rule in criminal cases and makes professional relevance a prerequisite.

The picking and provoking of trouble at issue in the applicant’s case arose from personal conduct and has no direct connection with the practice of law, professional convenience or specific professional duties; it is not a crime committed through the use of his professional identity. Even for people who commit crimes by taking advantage of the convenience afforded by their profession, the Criminal Law generally provides only for occupational bans of three to five years. The applicant committed no offense connected with his legal practice, yet was subjected to the extremely severe disciplinary penalty of revocation of his practice certificate, which in practice means he can never again practice as a lawyer. This clearly exceeds what is necessary and violates the principles that penalties should be commensurate with offenses and that criminal punishment should be restrained.

V. Paragraph 2 of Article 49 of the Lawyers Law conflicts with higher-level law

The Legislation Law provides that lower-level laws must not conflict with the Constitution or higher-level laws. The applicant believes that Paragraph 2 of Article 49 of the Lawyers Law, which states that “where a lawyer is subject to criminal punishment for an intentional crime, the judicial administrative department of the province or autonomous region shall revoke the lawyer’s practice certificate,” conflicts with higher-level law in the following respects: 1. It conflicts with the Constitution’s protection of the right to work and the right to equality, by turning every intentional crime into permanent exclusion from the profession; 2. It is inconsistent with the time limits and conditions for application under the Criminal Law’s occupational prohibition system, revoking a practice certificate in every case of an intentional crime, including those with no connection to the profession; 3. As an ordinary law, it imposes the most severe qualification penalty without adequately distinguishing between the nature of the crime, its connection to the profession and the risk of reoffending, undermining the coordination and unity of the legal system.

A penalty imposed under a provision that is the subject of significant dispute should not simply be upheld.

VI. The penalty in this case violates several principles of the rule of law.

1. The principle against double jeopardy and repeated evaluation. The applicant has already undergone the full criminal punishment for the same conduct; adding permanent deprivation of his professional qualification constitutes an excessively severe second assessment. 2. The principle of proportionality. A penalty should be commensurate with the circumstances of the violation, its connection to the profession and the need for prevention. A lifetime ban on practicing in response to a personal crime unrelated to the profession is an imbalance between rights and obligations. 3. Rehabilitation and social reintegration. Upon completion of a sentence, lawful avenues of employment should remain open. A lifetime ban blocks the path to reintegration and is inconsistent with the objectives of balancing leniency with severity and social governance. 4. Administration in accordance with the law. Where higher-level law already establishes a framework for occupational prohibitions, administrative authorities must not mechanically apply a disputed provision and increase the penalty to have a lifetime effect.

VII. Request that the reconsideration authority correct the decision in accordance with the law and initiate a review referral

The Ministry of Justice has a duty to supervise provincial-level judicial administrative authorities and ensure the consistent application of the law. The applicant requests that the reconsideration authority revoke the penalty at issue and restore the applicant’s qualification to practice law; and that it refer and send to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, in accordance with the law, the issue of harmonizing Paragraph 2 of Article 49 of the Lawyers Law with the Constitution, Criminal Law and Legislation Law, so that a record-filing review can clarify whether revocation of a practice certificate should distinguish between negligence and intent, whether the connection to the profession should be considered, and whether a time limit or conditions for reapplication should be established, thereby avoiding treating every intentional crime as equivalent to a lifetime ban on practicing.

In conclusion, the respondent relied on a disputed provision to revoke the applicant’s practice certificate; the basis was inappropriate and the penalty excessive. This not only harms the applicant’s lawful right to work and right to survival and development, but also does not serve the unity of the rule of law. The applicant respectfully requests that the Ministry of Justice revoke the Administrative Penalty Decision (Gui Si Fa Jue Zi [2026] No. 4) in accordance with the law, order the restoration of the applicant’s qualification to practice law, and initiate the aforementioned review and referral procedure in accordance with the law.

To: Ministry of Justice of the People's Republic of China

Applicant: Qin Weijin