China Justice Observer

中司观察

EnglishArabicChinese (Simplified)DutchFrenchGermanHindiItalianJapaneseKoreanPortugueseRussianSpanishSwedishHebrewIndonesianVietnameseThaiTurkishMalay

China Issues New Rules on Conduct for the Legal Profession

Mon, 06 Dec 2021
Categories: China Legal Trends

China has set out to further restrict improper interactions between prosecutors or judges and lawyers to ensure judicial integrity.

On 2 Nov. 2021, the Supreme People’s Court, the Supreme People’s Procuratorate, and the Ministry of Justice jointly issued the “Opinions on Establishing a Sound Institutional Mechanism for to Prohibit Improper Contact and Interaction Among Judges, Prosecutors and Lawyers” (hereinafter “the Opinions”, 关于建立禁止法官、检察官与律师不正当接触交往制度机制的意见) and the “Opinions on Regulating the Post-Government Employment” (hereinafter “the Opinions on PGE”, 规范离任人员从业意见).

The Opinions details seven types of improper contact and interaction in a negative list, including having contact with lawyers outside of workplaces and work times, interfering or intervening in ongoing cases, introducing cases to lawyers, soliciting or accepting bribes, having improper interactions, engaging in for-profit activities through cooperation, etc.

The Opinions on PGE makes it clear that staff of people’s courts and people’s procuratorates who have been dismissed from public office shall not engage in any work in law firms; staff of people’s courts and people’s procuratorates at all levels who have left the office voluntarily shall not act as a lawyer to represent or defend in two years.

Our previous post, "What's Next After Exodus of Chinese Judges and Prosecutors?", has addressed the fact that some judges and prosecutors have left their positions to pursue careers as lawyers. The public is concerned that this may damage judicial justice.

These two Opinions were issued in response to tackling this problem.

 
 

Cover Photo by Jeremy Cai on Unsplash

Contributors: CJO Staff Contributors Team

Save as PDF

You might also like

PRC Double Interest neither Double nor Penal, Australian Courts Clear Its Name When Enforcing Chinese Judgments

Recent Australian case law clarifies that the “double interest” mechanism in the People’s Republic of China (hereafter ‘PRC’) monetary judgments functions as a compensatory post-judgment interest framework rather than an unenforceable penalty. This consolidates Australia’s position as a highly attractive and creditor-friendly forum for enforcing Chinese judgments. See Zhengzhou Lvdu Real Estate Group Co v Shu [2024] NSWSC 58 (6 February 2024), Fu v Pang [2025] VSC 597 (16 September 2025)

IOMed Settles First Case, Resolving China-Singapore Maritime Dispute

The newly established International Organization for Mediation (IOMed) has successfully resolved its inaugural case—a maritime charter dispute between Chinese and Singaporean parties—marking a major milestone for the world’s first government-backed global mediation body.

China Overhauls Arbitration Law for Global Alignment

Having entered into force on March 1, 2026, China’s first comprehensive revision of its 1995 Arbitration Law has introduced ad hoc arbitration, strengthened interim relief, and aligned the legal framework more closely with international standards.