Lawyer Ethics With Chinese Characteristics. It Matters.
Second year SMU law student, Jing "Brad" Luo, recently had an article of his on China lawyer ethics published in China Law & Practice Magazine. A law student getting an article published in such a prestigious magazine (in his second language, no less) is really quite a feat. The article is entitled, "Chinese Law on Lawyers Amended: Progress Made and to Be Made," and though a subscription is required to see the whole article on the China Law & Practice site, Brad nicely summarizes it on his own blog, with a post, entitled, "Legal Ethics, In Chinese Style."
My gross summary of Brad's summary is that China's new ethical rules for lawyers expand a bit on both the scope of confidentiality of client information and on what constitutes a conflict of interest, but on neither front have the rules gone far enough to make Western clients feel terribly comfortable. I previously wrote on why this discomfort is necessary in a post, entitled, "China Lawyer Ethics -- Perils And Pitfalls For Foreign Companies," which post, in turn, was based on two of Brad's previous posts (here and here) on China lawyer ethics.
Now I know you non-lawyers (if you have even gotten this far) are thinking that none of this has anything to do with you, you are going to just have to trust me that if you have ever hired a Chinese lawyer or law firm or are even contemplating doing so, you need to read the above posts.
Comments
I think it depends on the quality and the level of the law firm and lawyers involved. Most of my China experience is with Chinese lawyers who mainly interact with Western lawyers and who frequently have legal training, and even bar admission, in the United States or Western Europe. Their ethical sense is on a par with their Western counterparts.
Posted by: James P. Duffy, III | May 6, 2008 5:35 PM
I'm curious - does attorney-client privelege exist in China? If it does does it also cover in-house lawyers, or is it like proceedings before the European Commission and Court of Justice where privelege doesn't cover communications with in-house counsel?
Posted by: FOARP | May 9, 2008 10:19 AM
Admitted to what kind of a "bar" again? And are you sure they're all over 18? And their ethical sense is "on a par" with their Western counterparts? And is their handicap the same too? Are is all of this stuff just the same old "par for the course"?
Posted by: Max jones | May 10, 2008 2:28 AM