Recently, the case of lawyer Ge Yunlong from Wuhu, Anhui Province facing business suspension penalties for his remarks in court has sparked attention, with legal professionals criticizing the judicial authorities for acting unlawfully. Surprisingly, Ge Yunlong later shifted to speaking in favor of the judicial authorities trying to discipline him, which has caught the legal community off guard.
On May 14th, staff from the Wuhu Judicial Bureau spoke with Ge Yunlong, stating that when he defended corrupt official Feng Haifei in 2024, he raised questions in court about improper detention and coercion during the investigation, which was seen as insulting the investigating agencies. Consequently, he faced a possible penalty of six months to a year of suspension of practice and was asked to withdraw from representing the case.
Regarding the actions of the Wuhu Judicial Bureau, legal scholar Li Yuqing (pseudonym) in the United States mentioned to Epoch Times, “China’s criminal justice system is usually just for show.” “The judicial system of the Chinese Communist Party is becoming more and more rogue-like, disregarding even the basic procedures.”
Human rights lawyer Lu Tingge, persecuted by the Chinese Communist Party, previously told Epoch Times that the Party’s crackdown on lawyers is a blatant violation of the law, blatantly infringing on lawyers’ rights, showing no regard for the laws established by the state. Essentially, they are the first to break the law they set forth.
Article 36 of the “Lawyers Law” stipulates that when a lawyer serves as a legal representative or defense counsel, their right to present arguments or defenses is legally protected. According to Article 37, Paragraph 2, lawyers’ statements in court as representatives or defense counsel are exempt from legal liability.
A report by Cai Xin on May 20 recounted Ge Yunlong’s experience. According to the report, Professor He Bing from China University of Political Science and Law believes that criticizing government agencies does not constitute defamation, and critiquing specific investigative agencies and personnel is not considered defamation. Lawyers have the right to speak freely in court and should not be penalized for expressing their views.
Shanghai lawyer Si Weijiang expressed that penalizing Ge would trigger a “chilling effect” among lawyers, ultimately leading to the collapse of the criminal defense system.
Han Xu, a professor at the Law School of Sichuan University, stated that restricting lawyers’ freedom of speech would essentially abolish the lawyer system, rendering the meaning of lawyers’ practice rights meaningless.
According to a notice from the Wuhu Lawyers Association in 2025, the lawyer assessment process has been conducted from March to May, with Ge Yunlong currently under review.
On the afternoon of the 20th, Ge Yunlong, the focus of public opinion, posted a screenshot in his social circle, stating: “Thank you all for your concern. I made a misunderstanding. The Judicial Bureau just wanted to inquire about the court hearing, not to penalize me. Please do not exaggerate and create misunderstandings.”
Ge Yunlong also demanded media outlets retract their articles, threatening to file complaints if they don’t comply.
Legal professionals in mainland China expressed disappointment and dissatisfaction with Ge Yunlong’s shift towards speaking in support of the judicial authorities trying to discipline him.
Lawyer Zhou Ze publicly expressed on the internet, “As the first to disclose Ge Yunlong’s case, if the outcome disappoints everyone, I apologize sincerely.”
Han Xu, who wrote articles advocating for Ge Yunlong, later posted online, “Feels like being deceived! Repaid with ingratitude, counterattack! Pitiful!”
Several lawyers shared their dissatisfaction in their social circles, labeling Ge Yunlong as a “farmer-biting snake,” lacking backbone, and having a servile appearance.
Ge Yunlong’s compromising stance may be linked to the severe crackdown by the CCP on outspoken lawyers. A mainland Chinese lawyer, who preferred anonymity, disclosed to Epoch Times that the judicial bureau conducts lawyer assessments and annual inspections. Failing the inspection means lawyers won’t receive official stamps needed for their cases from various judicial entities. Additionally, it is not an individual issue; the entire law firm is affected, failing the inspection collectively.
The “709 Crackdown,” a prominent and far-reaching incident targeting human rights lawyers, continues to have some lawyers sentenced and imprisoned to this day. Many released lawyers are struggling to make a living due to their licenses being revoked.
Chinese human rights lawyer Chen Hao (pseudonym), whose lawyer’s license was revoked, previously told Epoch Times that after the widespread crackdown on rights lawyers following the “709 Incident,” the Chinese Ministry of Justice issued documents to suppress lawyers, causing many to refrain from handling rights cases. Engaging in such cases would mean facing transfer, punishment, implicating the entire law firm and the director, showcasing a clear example of guilt by association.