动态与观点
Abstract
The Draft Amendment to the Law of the People's Republic of China on Lawyers was submitted to the Standing Committee of the 14th National People's Congress (NPC) for deliberation on June 23, 2026, and was open for public comment on the NPC's official website until July 25. Currently, the draft is undergoing its second round of revision and subsequent review by the Legislative Affairs Commission of the NPC Standing Committee, taking into account feedback from various parties. The issue of lawyers' right to meet with their clients is bound to attract significant attention from both domestic and international media.
The 1979 Criminal Procedure Law
Article 110 of the Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China (1979) stipulated that after a people's court decided to hold a trial, it was required to carry out the following tasks: serve a copy of the people's procuratorate's indictment upon the defendant no later than seven days before the trial, and inform the defendant that they could retain a defense lawyer or that a defense lawyer would be appointed for them if necessary.
During this period, lawyers could intervene in the criminal proceedings at the court trial stage and meet with the defendant.
The 1996 Criminal Procedure Law
Article 96, Paragraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China (1996 Amendment) stated: A retained lawyer has the right to inquire of the investigative agency about the charges against the criminal suspect, meet with the detained suspect, and learn about the circumstances of the case from the suspect. When a lawyer meets with a detained suspect, the investigative agency may dispatch personnel to be present, depending on the circumstances and needs of the case. For cases involving state secrets, a lawyer's meeting with a detained suspect requires the approval of the investigative agency.
During this period, lawyers could intervene in the criminal proceedings—and meet with the defendant—starting from the time the suspect was first interrogated by the investigative agency or from the date compulsory measures were taken. For cases involving state secrets, the retention of a lawyer by the suspect required the approval of the investigative agency.
The 2012 Criminal Procedure Law
Article 37 of the Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China (2012 Amendment) stipulated: A defense lawyer may meet and communicate with a detained criminal suspect or defendant. When a defense lawyer requests to meet with a detained criminal suspect or defendant—presenting their practicing certificate, a certificate from their law firm, and a power of attorney or an official letter regarding legal aid—the detention center must arrange the meeting promptly, and in any event, no later than forty-eight hours after the request.
During this period, for cases involving crimes endangering national security, terrorist activities, or particularly serious bribery, a defense lawyer seeking to meet a detained criminal suspect during the investigation phase was required to obtain permission from the investigative agency.
The 2018 Criminal Procedure Law
Article 36 of the Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China (2018 Amendment): Legal aid institutions may station duty lawyers at locations such as people's courts and detention centers. Where a criminal suspect or defendant has not retained a defense lawyer and the legal aid institution has not assigned a lawyer to provide a defense, the duty lawyer shall provide legal assistance—such as legal consultation, advice on procedural choices, applications to alter compulsory measures, and opinions on case handling—to the suspect or defendant.
During this period, the duty lawyer system emerged within the criminal procedure framework. Criminal suspects and defendants have the right to meet with a duty lawyer; however, the duty lawyer is not their defense lawyer and does not perform defense duties.
The above is a comparative review of the legal provisions regarding the right of lawyers to meet with clients across four historical periods in China.
The Right-Holder of the Attorney's Right to Meet Criminal Suspects
In essence, the right to meet clients involves a lawyer meeting and conversing with a criminal suspect; however, the legal logic regarding who holds this right belongs differs. Specifically, the question is whether the defense lawyer has the right to meet the suspect, or whether the suspect has the right to meet the defense lawyer. While superficially similar, the nature of these rights differs. Conversely, if the lawyer's right to meet clients is not guaranteed, whose right is being infringed upon?
An examination of the legal provisions from the four historical periods mentioned above clearly reveals that the right to meet clients is a statutory right of the defense lawyer; if this right is not guaranteed, it is the defense lawyer's right that is infringed. This is why the revision of China's Law on Lawyers may necessitate further refinement of this right.
Within the jurisprudential context of the Miranda warning, the right to meet a lawyer is a fundamental right of the criminal suspect or defendant; if this right is not guaranteed, it is the right of the suspect or defendant that is infringed. This issue falls outside the regulatory scope of the Law on Lawyers; rather, it is a matter concerning the framework of the Criminal Procedure Law.
Influenced by film and television, many legal professionals—both domestic and foreign—as well as members of the general public, often conflate the "Miranda warning" with the right of Chinese lawyers to meet with clients, analyzing them within the same conceptual framework. In reality, however, the two concepts belong to fundamentally different legal paradigms. Consequently, in practice, Chinese lawyers are often expected to conduct criminal defense work in the same manner as their counterparts in common law jurisdictions—an expectation that inevitably fails to yield the anticipated results.
Conclusion
Rooted in China’s unique Eastern legal culture, the Chinese criminal procedure system grants lawyers the right to meet with criminal suspects, rather than establishing a suspect’s fundamental right to counsel. This distinction represents the most fundamental difference between Chinese and foreign logics of criminal procedure. The recent revision of the Law on Lawyers serves only to refine the rights of lawyers; the question of how to safeguard the rights of criminal suspects is a legal issue that must be addressed by the Criminal Procedure Law.
律师介绍
Zunyi WANG
Beijing Hengdu (Shanghai) Law Firm
Zunyi WANG is an Attorney at Law at Beijing Hengdu (Shanghai) Law Firm and holds a Bachelor of Laws from Peking University. He holds the Legal Professional Qualification Certificate, Professional Qualifications for Banking Professionals (intermediate level), Qualifications for Securities Industry Practitioners, Qualifications for Futures Practitioners, and Qualification for Fund Practitioners. He has previously served at a primary people's court and as the head of legal and compliance affairs for a financial leasing company. He is a Committee Member of the Non-Bank Finance Committee of the Shanghai Bar Association (SHBA) and an Individual Member of the International Bar Association (IBA). Additionally, he serves as an Arbitrator of the Zibo Arbitration Commission, a Mediator of the People's Mediation Committee of the Shanghai Financial Leasing Association (SLA) and the Shanghai Pudong New Area Shangtong Commercial Mediation Center of the Shanghai Commercial Factoring Association (SCFA).
