Recently, judicial bureaus and bar associations in Anhui, Guizhou, and other regions have started to intensively inspect lawyer gatherings, requiring lawyers to report their dining and drinking activities, sparking backlash from the legal community. Industry insiders believe that authorities are taking this action due to financial constraints and to enhance social control.
On July 2nd, the Bijie City Bar Association conveyed a notice regarding the regulation of irregular dining and drinking practices in the legal profession, strictly prohibiting lawyers from organizing or participating in banquets under the guise of “business exchanges” or “case discussions.” They mandated that all law firms conduct self-inspections, promptly rectify any issues, and report relevant situations to the local bar association.
The document states that the bar association, in collaboration with relevant departments, will conduct special inspections to rigorously address violations, imposing industry disciplinary actions or referring cases to relevant authorities based on the severity of the offenses. They also provided contact phone numbers and emails for reporting.
This directive was to be disseminated to all lawyers and staff members.
As early as June, a notice from Anhui requiring lawyers to report banquet plans and strictly prohibit alcohol consumption had caused a stir and received widespread criticism within the industry. Messages circulating on social media indicated that the judicial bureau strictly prohibited irregular dining and drinking, mandating party member lawyers to report in advance for any banquet events. Party member lawyers were required to report dining outside to the bureau, while non-party member lawyers had to report to their law firms, regardless, consuming alcohol was strictly forbidden.
In response, the legal community expressed “bewilderment” and viewed this measure as “excessive intrusion” and “arbitrary enforcement.”
Professor Han Xu from Sichuan University’s Law School wrote that targeting lawyers for irregular dining and drinking lacks legal basis and blurs the line between power and rights.
The article suggests that a widespread campaign against irregular dining and drinking is unfolding nationwide, with lawyers now being targeted for such malpractices. A law firm even established an “alcohol testing post” where lawyers must undergo breathalyzer tests before commencing work. The imposition of such obligations on lawyers, who do not receive “official salaries” like government employees, is deemed unnecessary.
Internet users commented, questioning the alcohol ban and remarking on increasing surveillance over lawyers as they gain prominence. They raised concerns about government agencies overreaching into private dining affairs, noting that lawyers and judges should be held accountable, but reasonable social interactions should still be allowed.
However, many articles or images criticizing the alcohol ban for lawyers have been removed from online platforms, leading to pages displaying error messages.
On May 18th, the State Council of the CCP issued revised regulations on “strictly practicing thrift and opposing waste in party and government agencies,” dubbed the “strictest alcohol ban in history,” stipulating restrictions on high-end dishes, tobacco, and alcohol during work meals.
On May 13th, the CCP Central Commission for Discipline Inspection reported on ten officials from Henan’s Xinyang City and Luoshan County violating the “Central Eight-point Regulation” during a meeting on March 22nd, where five individuals collectively consumed four bottles of liquor, leading to the sudden death of Deputy Secretary of the Political and Legal Affairs Committee of Luoshan County, Xia Yu.
A lawyer from Henan, using the pseudonym Jin Ping, stated in an interview with Da Ji Yuan that the recent discussions among domestic lawyers echoing the Bijie Bar Association’s notice mostly expressed opposition. He emphasized that such regulations are specific to certain regions conforming to Xi Jinping’s alcohol ban and are impractical and legally untenable.
“This sends a clear message. In mainland China, not just officials but even individuals in so-called private organizations seem to be behaving similarly to the Cultural Revolution era—sycophantic and flattery-driven, without considering legality or reasonableness. This extreme distortion and lack of rationality are quite worrisome,” he said.
Jin Ping analyzed that the incident likely stemmed from the overconsumption of alcohol leading to the death of officials during a meal in Xinyang, Henan last month. At the current economic downturn and the need to curb expenditures, authorities aim to prevent gatherings, especially officials engaging in feasting and socializing, which serves as an underlying reason.
He further noted that lawyers are far less indulgent in alcohol consumption compared to government officials. However, if this mode of regulation continues unabated in line with Xi Jinping’s directives, there is a possibility of a nationwide enforcement.
“Due to the deteriorating economic situation, they are cracking down on irregular dining and drinking in the name of opposing waste. Just like how personal identification was mandated in the past to combat scalping, and later accommodation registration for fighting crime. It’s all superficial. Beijing has its own considerations behind this, while those below are just testing the waters, but fierce resistance is met,” he added.
Another lawyer from Shanghai, Dai, interviewed by Da Ji Yuan, stated that the ongoing rectification within the legal profession mirrors the previous leadership’s “Eight-point Regulation” and now extends to ordinary party members, primarily due to financial constraints. She acknowledged the rampant dining and drinking habits among lawyers, attributed to the necessity for lawyers to interact with law enforcement personnel. She opined that corruption in the judiciary, with significant contributions from lawyers, leads to numerous unjust cases through bribery facilitated by wining and dining practices.
China’s legal system, comprising the prosecution, judiciary, and law enforcement, merely serves as a facade for the authoritarian regime, Dai remarked.