On October 28, 2007, the standing committee of the
National People’s Congress amended the Law on Lawyers, according to a Xinhua
article of the same date. The law marginally changes the rules
governing the legal profession in China.  It also introduces additional protections
of unclear practical importance for lawyers representing their clients.

• The amended law retains the dual management structure
  governing the legal profession in China, but relaxes some requirements for the
  establishment of law firms.

The amended law continues to vest responsibility for the
management and discipline of lawyers with both the Ministry of Justice and the
Chinese bar association. It specifically
allows for the creation of solo practitioner law firms and permits firms with
20 or more lawyers to establish branches. 

• The amended law adds specific protections for lawyers meeting with criminal suspects and defendants.

Article 33 states that lawyers shall not be
"monitored" (jianting) while meeting with criminal suspects and
defendants. Prior language only gave
lawyers the right to meet with their clients. The new phrasing appears to directly conflict with Article 96 of the
1996 Criminal Procedure Law, which states that
when lawyers meet with criminal suspects in detention, investigation organs
(i.e. the Public Security Bureau) can send personnel to be present at the meeting, depending on
the circumstances and need.   It is unclear how this conflict will be resolved in practice.

• The amended law appears to grant lawyers some degree of
  additional protection in conducting their representation of clients.

Article 37 protects from legal sanction courtroom statements by lawyers in
defense of their clients, but exempts from protection those
statements that "harm national security, intentionally slander others, or
seriously disrupt courtroom order." The
same provision also specifically provides that "if lawyers are detained or
arrested in the course of litigation activities on suspicion of a crime, the
detaining or arresting authorities must notify the lawyers' relatives, law
firm, and bar association within 24 hours." 

• The amended law also warns lawyers
  against excessive involvement with citizen protests.

Article 40 adds a specific prohibition barring lawyers
from "inciting or abetting parties to engage in disturbing public order,
threatening public security, and other illegal methods to resolve
grievances."  

So what should one make of this? Well, my inclination is to read the
amendments as reflecting the conflicted attitudes of Chinese authorities regarding lawyers and legal activists. Activist Chinese lawyers have brought a range of criminal and civil
legal challenges to government practices in recent years. Party
authorities are not interested in seeing the legal profession develop in a
manner that might challenge their political controls. Retention of the dual management structure is
intended to combat this. The specific
language barring lawyers from "aiding or abetting parties to disturb public
order" may be aimed at drawing a line in the sand, warning lawyers to confine
their activities to the courtroom, and avoid entanglement with activists
pursuing broader protest or petitioning strategies.

On the other hand, I suspect that some Chinese central officials
recognize that public interest lawyers play a useful role in exposing and
combating some local abuses that national officials would very much like to
control themselves. The language
regarding the detention or arrest of lawyers engaged in litigation-related
activities reads to me like a shot across the bow of local officials who might
be interested in casually seizing legal activists challenging corrupt or
illegal practices of local governments.