Regarding my possible suspension, my view is that a one-year suspension is a small matter for me, but a big matter for the lawyer industry.
This is about the right of the entire lawyer profession to criticize, accuse, complain, and prosecute state organs and state employees (mainly public security and judicial organs and their staff), and about the future of the criminal defense system, which is a big issue.
It was never the duty of defense lawyers, even in the Qing Dynasty, to cooperate with the judiciary to smoothly turn their clients into criminals.
No state public authority is immune from criticism! Even in the United States, where judicial authority is most respected, justice is not immune to criticism (including from lawyers).
In my opinion, the basic content of criminal defense is to make suggestions for the fair handling of cases, as well as to criticize, accuse, complain, and prosecute the authorities and personnel handling the cases for wrongdoing and injustice, and to promote the fair handling of cases.
As a former media journalist, media law teaching researcher and senior criminal defense lawyer who has long studied the relationship between media and justice, all my public comments on cases (usually criticism of wrongdoing and injustice) adhere to the principles of lawfulness, objectivity, impartiality and prudence required by the practice management methods for lawyers.
I deliberated every tweet I sent, and many times I wrote a tweet for several hours, following all the legal prohibitions on speech and striving to make every tweet problem-free.
A senior official from the competent department with whom I spoke commented on my Weibo comments that “individually, there is nothing wrong with each one of them, but when viewed together, they are very problematic”, but “there is nothing wrong with each one” already shows my grasp of the scale of my comments.
As for “when viewed in relation to each other, it is very problematic”, that is obviously not my problem anymore.
Although the tone of my public speech is mainly critical, it is obviously determined by the reality of the problem, not by me as the critic.
After all, unlike the news media, lawyers do not need to follow the principle of “positive reporting”. Of course, if I had sung more praises and made a connection, there might not have been a problem. But this is just hiding the problem.
On many occasions, I have been asked by my peers to share my experience in avoiding practice risks. This shows that my peers recognize the soundness of my practice and the control of practice risks.
If I am suspended for criticizing the public security authorities in Hefei for extracting confessions by torture and handling cases in violation of the law, it will undoubtedly create a chilling effect among lawyers, and no one will dare to criticize the authorities for extracting confessions by torture and handling cases in violation of the law. The actual fact is that the justice is difficult to be expected!
img
The following is a message I sent to the leaders of the Law Society to defend my rights.
Dear leaders of the Law Society.
I am Zhou Ze, a lawyer from Beijing Zebo Law Firm. Because of Anhui lawyer Lv Xiansan’s defense (pro bono assistance), through microblogging to expose the problem of forced confessions by torture by the Hefei public security (evidenced by audio and video interrogation), after the second trial of Lv Xiansan’s lawyer was sentenced from 12 years to 3 years, the Hefei public security, who suffered a setback in the pursuit of justice, complained to the Beijing judicial administration, requesting that I be “seriously dealt with”, Chaoyang District The Judicial Bureau proposed to suspend my practice for one year. This is totally unjust to me and unacceptable to any rational and conscientious person!
This is a blatant retaliation for the lawyer to expose the torture of the public security officers to extract confessions, and the public security officers suggested the judicial bureau to deal with the lawyer! The Justice Bureau ignored the lawyer to expose the public security torture confession is to perform to protect the legitimate rights and interests of the parties, to maintain the correct implementation of the law, to maintain social justice, and to punish the lawyer, contrary to the natural justice and human feelings. I hope the Law Society for my rights!
Recommend a U.S. attorney out-of-court speech restrictions article for the leadership reference.
U.S. Lawyers’ Out-of-Court Speech Restriction System and Its Implications
In the case mentioned in this article, Justice Kennedy stated in his opinion that a lawyer’s duty is not limited to the courtroom.
He or she should not ignore the reality of the outcome of his or her client’s legal proceedings. Just as an attorney may promote a plea bargain after trial to prevent a possible adverse outcome from a failed trial, so too may an attorney use reason to defend his or her client’s reputation and reduce the adverse effects of the prosecution’s allegations on his or her client, especially if the prosecution’s own position is unjust or ill-motivated.
A defense attorney may well use legitimate strategies to help exonerate his or her client or reduce the charges, and such strategies include demonstrating in court that public opinion is that his or her client should not be sentenced to any penalty.
Recent Comments