Rights Defense Commentary: Second Review of the Lawyers Law: If Lawyers’ Own Human Rights Cannot Be Protected, How Can We Talk About the Rights of Litigants?

Guest commentator：Mu Jiangshan

The draft amendment to the Lawyers Law, reviewed for a second time by the Standing Committee of the 14th National People’s Congress，has recently been hailed by many as a major upgrade in judicial human rights。But once the layers of rhetorical packaging are stripped away and examined closely，the entire text consists of statements of principle、and calls pointing in a particular direction，it skirts the core pain points，and dares not tackle the tough issues，in essence，it is simply a polished performance of paper rights。The reality of lawyers’ practice being controlled by power has not been shaken in the slightest，and the protection of lawyers’ own human rights has no firm backing，grand talk of litigants’ rights、and judicial fairness，is nothing more than self-deception。

The draft’s most presentable “system for safeguarding practice rights”，is，at its root，a false proposition。The document openly demands that public security、procuratorate、court and justice authorities “establish and improve safeguard mechanisms”，yet in reality these very authorities are precisely the ones that make things difficult for lawyers、and obstruct their practice。Having rights violators formulate rules to restrain themselves，and having power supervise itself，is itself an enormous joke。The obstruction of meetings with clients、the reduction of the scope of access to case files、the refusal to collect key evidence，and even framing lawyers by casually pinning on them the labels of “obstructing testimony” and “false litigation” are long-established routine practices of public power in some localities。Faced with these blatant rights violations，the draft neither designates an independent body to accept complaints，nor specifies concrete disciplinary standards and accountability procedures，and it offers no cross-level avenues for relief。When lawyers have their throats squeezed，in the end they can still only seek an explanation from the rights violator“or ask bar associations affiliated with the judicial system to mediate and smooth things over。This kind of safeguard in which one entity acts both as player and referee，is plainly just a superficial display for outsiders，good-looking but useless。Local authorities will continue to intervene as they please，and not one bit of the difficulty imposed on lawyers will be reduced。

More lethal than overt obstruction, yet leaving no visible wounds，is the unwritten rule of professional retaliation in sensitive cases，and this is precisely the core tough issue that this amendment completely avoids。In cases involving political persecution、land expropriation and demolition、mass incidents、and administrative litigation involving major local interests，as long as a lawyer dares to accept a retainer and stand on the opposite side of public power，what awaits them is often a comprehensive professional purge：some make an issue of annual inspections of practice certificates，creating every possible difficulty and blocking the lawyer；some deploy tax and investigative measures，opening case investigations under fabricated charges；some even issue direct bans on practice through bar associations，destroying the lawyer’s livelihood。The bar associations that should be standing up for lawyers lack the confidence to defend their rights independently from the moment of their creation，because their administrative structure is wholly dependent on local judicial and administrative authorities。When lawyers come to them to defend their rights，they are mostly advised to “consider the bigger picture” and “be mindful of the impact”，and failing to instead cooperate with those in power to do ideological work is already considered the fullest extent of their goodwill。

This amendment says not a word about this open secret within the profession，does not draw even a single clear red line around local authorities’ interference in lawyers’ practice，and contains no disciplinary design whatsoever for professional retaliation。This selectively blind approach to amending the law essentially amounts to accepting the legitimacy of the unwritten rules，and is tantamount to telling all lawyers：you should know in your own mind which cases you can take and which cases you cannot touch。If you want a secure livelihood，do not oppose local authorities。On such a premise，to talk about the right to defense and judicial equality is no different from making a deal with a tiger。

And the heavily promoted “full coverage of criminal defense” and “expansion of public-interest legal services”，look more like self-intoxication over a numbers game。Full coverage of criminal defense has been implemented for years，and the achievements in statistical data look impressive，but “make-up-number defenses” and “formalistic defenses” in grassroots judicial practice have long been open secrets。Many remote counties and districts are severely short of lawyers，and appointed defense lawyers often meet the client only once and read through a defense statement once at trial，completing the procedure in 10 minutes and treating the job as done。They neither investigate and collect evidence nor challenge the prosecution，and some even dare not raise objections to the charges，so-called defense rights are nothing more than props embellishing judicial fairness。

This draft continues to expand the scope of public-interest legal services and encourages lawyers to provide services at the grassroots level，but provides no substantive mechanism for directing resources where they are needed，completely ignoring the structural imbalance whereby lawyers’ resources are highly concentrated in first- and second-tier cities nationwide。The result can only be that the coverage figures look increasingly attractive and the reports increasingly impressive，while the effective legal assistance actually available to people at the bottom has not improved in the slightest。If judicial equality remains confined to the formal level of “having a lawyer”，then in essence it is merely a perfunctory treatment of the rights of disadvantaged groups。

There have never been isolated rights belonging to lawyers，and lawyers’ human rights have always been the first line of defense for litigants’ rights。The realization of equality between prosecution and defense in criminal proceedings and the confidence of citizens in suing the government in administrative litigation essentially depend on lawyers being able to exercise their practice rights independently and safely。When lawyers must look to power even for their own personal and professional safety，when representing sensitive cases means preparing to pay a professional price，and when all channels for defending their rights are controlled by the very power they are challenging，no lawyer will stake their entire career on the line for a litigant’s interests。

The final outcome has long been predetermined：lawyers will collectively castrate the edge of their defenses，litigants’ statutory rights will be reduced to declarations on paper，the imbalance between prosecution and defense will grow ever more severe，and judicial fairness will thereby lose its most basic support。

Amending the law has never been about seeing whose provisions are written more beautifully，but about whether it can truly solve real problems。If the amendment dares not touch the core problem of local authorities’ interference，dares not establish a truly independent mechanism for safeguarding practice，and dares not take real action against professional retaliation，then no matter how many times the Lawyers Law is revised，it will amount to nothing more than several additional pages of attractive paper documents。If lawyers’ human rights cannot be secured，litigants’ rights are a castle in the air，and so-called judicial fairness will ultimately be nothing more than empty words。

August 31, 2026