Chinese lawyers are being clamped down on for… having a conscience.

It seems that the All-China Lawyers Association (ACLA), the Chinese equivalent of the American Bar Association, issued a notice this March that required all Chinese lawyers involved in “mass cases” (10 or more people) and “sensitive” cases to report to their local bar association about the details of the case—and “accept the monitoring and guidance of the judicial administration agencies” (translation by AsiaNews.it).

There are several theories on what gave rise to this new rule.  Some say that lawyers practicing outside of their jurisdictions within China have offended many, so this regulation came out to keep lawyers within their bounds.  Others posit what seems obvious to me: China wants to keep track of protestors through the attorneys that represent them in court.

It seems to me that if this rule is enforced, any case that the government does not like will be slowed, hampered, and/or simply won’t happen.  The rule seems to be an obvious curtailing of the ability of lawyers to protect and represent those that are dissatisfied with the government or other aspects of society—even if they happen to feel the cause of their client is just.  However, when I read "Guiding Opinion on Lawyers Handling Mass Cases" (Chinese), looking for the wording of the restrictions, I first had to slog through a couple pages about how lawyers should represent people and have the right to represent mass cases.  Apparently, the Chinese government wants people to go to lawyers—which seems odd seeing how they have put apparently arbitrary restrictions on cases (i.e. those that are threatening to national security and economics.  Pretty broad definition.)

Looks to me like China is attempting to get a handle on dissatisfied groups by encouraging them to go to lawyers and then monitoring the lawyers.  Well, I think monitoring dissatisfied people through lawyers is fair as most legal cases are a public.   Yet, restricting lawyers in their ability to represent their clients will only cause their clients to realize that going to lawyers doesn’t net results, defeating the purpose of monitoring lawyers in the first place.

It seems China has a tightrope to walk.  They can either legitimize the efforts of dissatisfied groups by letting them go to court—and keep a finger on the pulse of mass cases, or they can clamp down on “sensitive” cases going through courts by controlling the lawyers that represent the clients.  In the first case, they give the people an avenue to express themselves and their potentially social stability shattering ideas.  On the other hand, they can stop such ideas from moving through the courts and force it all underground.

Well, we got a couple of Chinese lawyers in our firm.  I’ll talk to a couple of them tomorrow and see how they feel this law is affecting the mass cases.