China Justice Observer

中司观察

EnglishArabicChinese (Simplified)DutchFrenchGermanHindiItalianJapaneseKoreanPortugueseRussianSpanishSwedishHebrewIndonesianVietnameseThaiTurkishMalay

185 Representative Offices in China: Are Foreign Law Firms Leaving?

Sun, 25 Apr 2021
Categories: Insights

avatar

A total of 185 representative offices of foreign law firms in China had passed the 2019 annual examination, according to statistics disclosed by the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) in November 2020.

Pursuant to the Regulations for the Administration of Foreign Law Firms’ Representative Offices in China (外国律师事务所驻华代表机构管理条例), foreign law firms are not allowed to directly provide legal services within the territory of China, but must establish representative offices and engage in the businesses excluding the Chinese legal affairs. In addition, such representative offices are subject to annual examination.

In other words, based on the MOJ statistics, there are currently only 185 representative offices of foreign law firms that have passed the annual examination and are duly licensed in China.

These representative offices of foreign law firms spread in 5 provinces across the country, including Beijing (74), Shanghai (103), Guangdong Province (6), Liaoning Province (1), Zhejiang Province (1). We can see that there are 177 representative offices of foreign law firms located in Shanghai and Beijing, accounting for 95.7%.

In terms of the country of origin, the 185 representative offices are from 18 countries. Among them, there are 116 representative offices from the United Kingdom and the United States, accounting for 62.7%, and the rest from other countries including Japan(15), Germany(9), Australia(7), France(7), South Korea(7), and Singapore(7).

With regard to the statistics, the number of representative offices of foreign law firms has reduced again, reaching the bottom in recent years. The number of licensed representative offices was respectively 211 in 2018, 215 in 2017, whereas the number was all over 220 in 2014-2016.

This indicates that foreign law firms are gradually exiting the Chinese market.

Initially, along with the investment and trade of foreign clients, foreign law firms entered the Chinese market, and the first batch of international business lawyers was trained and developed in such representative offices in China.

Now, local law firms in China have gradually developed and are beginning to replace foreign law firms in providing services for foreign companies, which also accordingly compresses the market of foreign law firms in China.

In fact, Chinese law firms have also begun to expand into the international market and set up branches overseas.

Pursuant to the information disclosed by the Beijing Lawyers Association on 29 Oct. 2020, Beijing law firms mainly adopt direct investment and direct operation, alliances or joint ventures with foreign law firms, establishment of legal service companies, joining international law firm alliances, and signing memoranda of cooperation with foreign law firms and other models for international development.

In accordance with incomplete statistics disclosed by the Beijing Lawyers Association, 36 Chinese law firms have established 231 overseas branches through direct investment, joint venture, cooperation, alliances, etc., of which 25 law firms have 74 overseas branches, which has been reviewed and filed by the Beijing Municipal Bureau of Justice.

The above picture is the distribution map for overseas branches of Beijing law firms produced by the Beijing Lawyers Association.

The largest law firms in China, which are also the law firms most likely to expand into the international market, are generally headquartered in Beijing. Therefore, the statistics about the overseas branches of the Beijing law firms can primarily reflect the statistics about the overseas branches of Chinese local law firms.

It is worth noting that in Jul. 2019, the Ministry of Justice promulgated the Provisions on the Administration of Recording-filing of Overseas Branches of Law Firms (律师事务所境外分支机构备案管理规定), requiring Chinese law firms to file with the Chinese government if they set up branches overseas which they have actual control for and actually provide legal services.

Contributors: CJO Staff Contributors Team

Save as PDF

You might also like

Decoding the Turning Point: A Closer Look at China’s Recognition of Japanese Bankruptcy

This follow-up article focuses on the Chinese Court's detailed review of the Shanghai International Corporation case in 2023, highlighting the significance of reciprocity in cross-border bankruptcy proceedings and underscoring China's evolving approach to recognizing foreign judgments (See In re Shanghai International Corporation (2021) Hu 03 Xie Wai Ren No.1).

SPC Interprets International Treaties & Practices in Chinese Courts

In December 2023, China's Supreme People's Court (SPC) reaffirmed the supremacy of international treaties over domestic laws in foreign-related civil and commercial cases with its “Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of International Treaties and International Practices”(关于审理涉外民商事案件适用国际条约和国际惯例若干问题的解释).

China’s Wenzhou Court Recognizes a Singapore Monetary Judgment

In 2022, a local Chinese court in Wenzhou, Zhejiang Province, ruled to recognize and enforce a monetary judgment made by the Singapore State Courts, as highlighted in one of the typical cases related to the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) recently released by China’s Supreme People’s Court (Shuang Lin Construction Pte. Ltd. v. Pan (2022) Zhe 03 Xie Wai Ren No.4).

Chinese Law Firms' Overseas Expansion Surges, MOJ Reports

In November 2023, China’s Ministry of Justice (MOJ) reported a substantial 47.5% surge in the presence of Chinese law firms overseas since 2018, highlighting a focus on legal services in key sectors and the promotion of international legal expertise among Chinese lawyers, while also fostering collaborations with global arbitration institutions.

Legal Crossroads: Canadian Court Denies Summary Judgment for Chinese Judgment Recognition When Faced with Parallel Proceedings

In 2022, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice of Canada refused to grant summary judgment to enforce a Chinese monetary judgment in the context of two parallel proceedings in Canada, indicating that the two proceedings should proceed together as there was factual and legal overlap, and triable issues involved defenses of natural justice and public policy (Qingdao Top Steel Industrial Co. Ltd. v. Fasteners & Fittings Inc. 2022 ONSC 279).

Chinese Civil Settlement Statements: Enforceable in Singapore?

In 2016, the Singapore High Court refused to grant summary judgment to enforce a Chinese civil settlement statement, citing uncertainty about the nature of such settlement statements, also known as ‘(civil) mediation judgments’ (Shi Wen Yue v Shi Minjiu & Anor [2016] SGHC 137).