The source of the matter is that when I first joined the industry more than 10 years ago, I liked to observe the lawyer industry market at that time. At that time, the author noticed that some foreign lawyers in China, especially those who have received systematic legal training in both domestic and foreign countries, would call themselves or be referred to as international lawyers. One of the major areas of business at that time was the provision of legal services for foreign-funded enterprises and foreign investors, such as investment and financing, mergers and acquisitions, and legal advisors. But at that time, some foreign companies, such as a German company, did not directly hire lawyers from Chinese Mainland to invest in China. Instead, they brought a German lawyer from Germany. Of course, according to reasonable estimates or calculations, it is entirely possible that the German lawyer later subcontracted his business to domestic lawyers at a very low price. How can a German lawyer who has neither systematic legal training in Chinese Mainland nor legal experience in Chinese Mainland be competent to provide Chinese legal advice to German investors? This type of foreign lawyer in China was also referred to as an "international lawyer" at the time.
According to a foreign jurist, law is a kind of local knowledge, which means that the legal knowledge of Chinese Mainland is a kind of local knowledge of Chinese Mainland. Of course, strictly speaking, China's modern legal system is actually all imported. At the end of the Qing Dynasty, Mr. Shen Jiaben, a legislator from Zhejiang Province, hired Japanese people as advisors to draft several laws of the Qing Dynasty. His legal system introduced modern foreign legal systems and abandoned the nearly thousand year old imperial legislation or feudal legal system passed down by the local emperors (such as moss, war, apprenticeship, exile, and other feudal corporal punishment and exile punishments). In terms of civil law, modern German civil law is the source. Japan studied the legislative style of German civil law, and then the Japanese helped establish civil law for the Qing Dynasty. The several late Qing laws originally enacted by the Shen family were not actually implemented, and the Qing Dynasty perished. However, their legislative techniques deeply influenced the legislative style of the subsequent Republic of China, which can be said to have been inherited by the laws of the Republic of China. That is to say, the Six Laws of the Republic of China are still implemented in Taiwan today. When the People's Republic of China was first established, apart from the Marriage Law, the legislation of other laws was not actually taken seriously. On the contrary, it resolutely did not inherit the Six Laws of the Republic of China. In that special decade, it even smashed the public security organs and abolished law schools. After the reform and opening up, legislative work was only resumed, but the theoretical and institutional sources of legislation are still the modern and civilized legal systems of various countries around the world, especially the laws of the Republic of China that were once implemented in this country. As an example, those who study law in the science classes of mainland law schools still enjoy reading Taiwanese legal works, especially civil law, such as Mr. Wang Zejian's civil law works. From this perspective, German law, especially civil law, can be said to be the ancestor of Chinese law, at least an elder. So it seems that there is no problem for German lawyers to practice in China. After all, their legal theory system has a history of several hundred years, but our large-scale and serious legal theory construction only has a history of forty to fifty years (calculated from the formal reform and opening up).
Even so, it cannot be forgotten, or rather, the aforementioned situation does not change the conclusion that law is a local knowledge. This topic will be more extensive, with the primary concept being cultural differences. The civil laws of China and Germany may have similarities in large styles, but there are actually many subtle differences, including cultural differences that result in subtle legal provisions. And legal science is a highly rigorous discipline, and small differences cannot be ignored. In fact, I have not received systematic training in rigorous German law, so if you ask me what the difference is, I am unlikely to be able to answer. The opposite is also true. How can a German lawyer who has neither systematic legal training in Chinese Mainland nor legal experience in Chinese Mainland be competent to provide Chinese legal advice to German investors? Actually, China and Germany are fine, both belonging to the continental legal system, and the legislative style may be closer; The legal difference between China and the United States is even greater. China is close to the continental legal system, while the United States belongs to the Anglo American legal system. It can be seen from the TV that the lawyers with wigs generously express their opinions to the jury or cross examine witnesses. This is a trial in the Anglo American legal system, and has nothing to do with the courts in Chinese Mainland. Of course, the excitement of our trial is another kind of excitement.
Of course, we are not totally agnosticism. After all, it is still possible for graduates of domestic law schools who have received rigorous and systematic discipline education in China to go abroad to receive systematic local law training, such as law schools in Britain, America, Germany and Japan. The problem is that systematic training in law schools does not necessarily mean possessing practical knowledge. On the contrary, what law schools teach is actually basic knowledge, and practical knowledge needs to be retrained and relearned in practice (knocking the blackboard, taking the exam). A law school graduate who has not undergone practical training and training will never become a legal practitioner. Classroom and practice, even if not one hundred and eight thousand miles apart, are fifty-four thousand miles apart. And a person's energy is limited, and one can have a law degree from both countries, but a lawyer with practical knowledge from both countries or jurisdictions is too difficult. After all, for a legal practitioner, taking lawyers as an example, it takes at least 5 years to mature. Will there be someone who has obtained a law degree from two countries, then practices for 5 years in one country, matures, and then continues to work as an apprentice in a second country to re learn the practical knowledge of that country? It cannot be said that there are none at all, rare and few, these are truly cross jurisdictional dual evidence lawyers. But double certified lawyers are still not "international lawyers". Since I am an international lawyer from over 200 countries around the world, if not all of them should be proficient in the legal regulations of most countries; Obviously, this is impossible.
After arguing so much, my viewpoint is actually very simple. Lawyer licenses are granted or issued by government departments or industry associations in different countries, but there are no international organizations (including the United Nations) that issue lawyer licenses, including various international and Asia Pacific bar associations. So a lawyer must first have a country issue him a lawyer's license before he can join various international or Asia Pacific law associations. My lawyer's license was issued to me by the Ministry of Justice of China, so I am a proud lawyer of the People's Republic of China. Even though most of my clients may be foreigners, I practice Chinese law and work in law firms and courts in China. My "foreign-related" attribute is assigned by my foreign client.
Because of this, my professional and proficient knowledge of Chinese law is also the foundation that endows me with a sense of professional honor and dignity as a lawyer. I am a Chinese lawyer, so on the international stage, we are Chinese legal experts. We are on an equal footing with lawyers from other countries, while foreign lawyers, no matter how proficient in their business or how high their income is, in terms of Chinese legal knowledge and in Chinese courts, they are at the level of a small white person; Of course, the reverse is also true.
However, the aforementioned concept of "international lawyer" is actually a concept of "all-in-one lawyer". At the same time, the previous example is not an isolated one. Based on the concept of "anti all-in-one" professionalism advocated in this article, the national lawyers' associations at all levels have organized Chinese foreign-related practicing lawyers to prepare legal practice guidance along the "the Belt and Road" countries in recent years; and several political and law universities designated by courts at all levels have established "Foreign Law Discovery Center" It is unprofessional to have Chinese legal scholars (some part-time Chinese lawyers) undertake the heavy responsibility of foreign law investigation, which actually goes against the professional concept of "specialization in the field of law" in this article. Obviously, the correct approach is to search, identify, interpret, and guide the laws of any country, and it is the work of practicing lawyers and/or judges in that country, who are truly competent.