Guide
Although article 50 (5) of the Code of Conduct for Lawyers' Practice stipulates that in civil litigation, administrative litigation, or arbitration cases, where different lawyers of the same law firm simultaneously serve as agents of the parties to the dispute, the law firm must not establish or maintain a client relationship with the parties, but the document is an industry norm formulated by the All China Lawyers Association, and is not a mandatory provision of laws or administrative regulations.
The following five adjudication views all give clear answers to the title of the essay and do not violate the legal procedures.
▶▶ (2016) SPC Minshen No. 3404
5. Whether the court of first instance deprived the parties of the right to debate
Article 391 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Application <中华人民共和国民事诉讼法>stipulates: "In any of the following circumstances during the opening of the original trial, it shall be deemed to be deprivation of the right to debate as provided for in article 200, item 9 of the Civil Procedure Law: (1) the parties are not allowed to express their opinions on debate; (2) where a hearing should be held but no hearing is held; (3) where a copy of the complaint or a copy of the appeal pleading is served in violation of the provisions of the law, making it impossible for the parties to exercise their right to debate; (4) Other circumstances in which a party is unlawfully deprived of the right to debate. "According to the above-mentioned legal provisions, in the course of the trial of this case, the courts of first and second instance listened to the opinions of both parties to the case with different lawyers from the same law firm, and only when Yang Xiuzhen and the respondents insisted on not changing the lawyers and submitted their respective "Immunity Letters" to the court. In addition, article 39 of the Lawyers Law of the People's Republic of China only stipulates that lawyers may not act as agents for both parties in the same case, but does not prohibit different lawyers from the same law firm from acting as agents of the parties to the dispute. Although article 50 (5) of the Code of Conduct for Lawyers' Practice stipulates that in civil litigation, administrative litigation, or arbitration cases, where different lawyers of the same law firm serve as agents of the parties to the dispute at the same time, the law firm must not establish or maintain a client relationship with the parties, but the document is an industry norm formulated by the All China Lawyers Association and is not a mandatory provision of laws and administrative regulations, so Yang Xiuzhen advocates that the lawyers representing the two parties should be represented by different lawyers of the same law firm, which seriously violates the provisions of the law. The grounds on which the court of first instance deprived the parties of the right to debate could not be established because of the lack of factual and legal basis.
▶▶ (2017) SPC Min Zai No. 246
As for The claim of Guangyu Company during the retrial trial, during the second instance trial of this case, Guangyu Company Company Appointed the litigation agent as a lawyer of Jiangsu Jianghao Law Firm, and Huiyin Company entrusted the litigation agent Ding Wei as a partner of the same law firm, and in the course of the litigation, there was a situation of entrusting a litigation agent to manipulate the litigation, but no evidence was provided to prove it, and the claim did not fall under the retrial situation provided for in Article 200 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, and this court did not review it.
▶▶ (2015) Min Shen Zi No. 425
(1) On the issue of whether two lawyers from the same law firm represented the plaintiff or defendant in the first- and second-instance trial procedures respectively violated legally prescribed procedures.
According to the provisions of the Lawyers Law of the People's Republic of China and the relevant approvals of the Ministry of Justice, the lawyers of Heilongjiang Nuocheng Law Firm raised by Huifu Jixian Branch were issues of serious violation of statutory procedures stipulated in Article 200 of the Civil Procedure Law and Article 325 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China. Therefore, Huifu Jixian Branch's claim that the second-instance court procedure was illegal cannot be established.
▶▶ (2014) MinShen Zi No. 898
On the issue that the representatives of the parties in the first-instance proceedings are lawyers of the same law firm. Article 39 of the Lawyers Law stipulates that "a lawyer may not act as an agent for both parties in the same case, and may not represent a legal matter that has a conflict of interest with himself or his close relatives", but does not restrict the representation authority of different lawyers, so the act of representing the lawyer does not violate the prohibition of the law. Moreover, this issue no longer existed during the second-instance trial of this case, and the cause of the matter was not a statutory situation in which the people's court should retry, so the reasons for Kaixing Company's application for retrial were not supported.
▶▶ (2013) Min Yi Zhong Zi No. 149
In the case of Lou Songchun and Qilian County Science and Technology Agriculture and Animal Husbandry Poverty Alleviation and Development Bureau, Fangtai Construction Group Co., Ltd., Fangtai Construction Group Co., Ltd. Qinghai Branch and Shi Weiwei Construction Project Construction Contract Dispute, the Supreme People's Court held that: "With regard to the same law firm accepting the entrustment of the original defendant and the defendant in the same case, the Civil Procedure Law and other laws and judicial interpretations do not prohibit it. In this case, Shi Weiwei was added as a plaintiff in the first instance, but there was no conflict of interest between him and the defendants in the first instance, the Agriculture and Animal Husbandry Bureau, Fangtai Company and Fangtai Qinghai Branch, and although he and the Agriculture and Animal Husbandry Bureau both entrusted the same law firm to represent the litigation, they did not harm the litigation rights of any of the parties. Lou Songchun also did not object to this during the first instance trial. The court of first instance allowed lawyers from the same law firm to represent Shi Weiwei and the Agriculture and Animal Husbandry Bureau in the litigation at the same time, but although it was improper, it did not violate the statutory procedures; Lou Songchun thus claimed that the first-instance judgment violated legal procedures and had no legal basis, and this court did not support it. ”
▶▶ Code of Conduct for Lawyers' Practice
Article 50:In any of the following circumstances, lawyers and law firms must not establish or maintain a client relationship with the parties:
(1) Where the lawyer acts as an agent for both parties in the same case, or represents a legal affair that has a conflict of interest with the person or his or her close relatives;
(2) Where lawyers handle litigation or non-litigation business, and their close relatives are the legally-designated representatives or agents of the opposing party;
(3) Administrative organ staff, adjudicators, procuratorial personnel, or arbitrators who have personally handled or tried a certain matter or case, and then handled the matter or case after becoming lawyers;
(4) Different lawyers of the same law firm simultaneously serve as agents for victims of the same criminal case and defenders of criminal suspects or defendants, except where there is only one law firm within the county area and the parties' prior consent is obtained;
(5) In civil litigation, administrative litigation, or arbitration cases, different lawyers of the same law firm simultaneously serve as agents of the parties to the dispute, or the firm or its staff is one party, and other lawyers of the firm serve as agents of the opposing party;
(6) In non-litigation business, in addition to being jointly entrusted by all parties, lawyers of the same law firm simultaneously serve as agents of the parties with mutual interests;
(7) After the termination of the retention relationship, the same law firm or the same lawyer accepts the entrustment of the other party during the subsequent trial or handling of the same case;
(8) Other situations similar to items (1) to (7) of this article, and where on the basis of lawyers' practice experience and industry common sense, it can be judged that conflicts of interest should be voluntarily recused and must not be handled.