Chinese Lawyer Gets Non-Prosecution for Acting as Litigation Rep; Bar Association Deeply Disagrees
A Chinese lawyer acting as a corporate litigation representative without a Taiwanese license was not prosecuted by the Taichung Prosecutors Office. The Taiwan Bar Association strongly protested, warning it undermines the legal system.
📋 Article Processing Timeline
- 📰 Published: April 19, 2026 at 18:29
- 🔍 Collected: April 19, 2026 at 19:00 (31 min after Published)
- 🤖 AI Analyzed: April 19, 2026 at 19:28 (27 min after Collected)
When the Taichung District Court heard a civil dispute case in August of Year 114 (2025), the defendant was an Austrian company, which submitted a document appointing a Chinese lawyer surnamed Liu, who did not have a Taiwanese lawyer's qualification, as its litigation representative.
The Taichung District Court stated that during the first oral argument session on August 13, Year 114, Representative Liu stated he was serving as a litigation representative in his capacity as a legal counsel employed by the defendant company. Because he lacked a Taiwanese lawyer's qualification and could not provide relevant supporting evidence, the presiding judge did not permit the representation, and ordered Representative Liu to provide supplementary materials regarding the questions raised by the plaintiff's litigation representative.
The Taichung District Prosecutors Office believed that according to the Lawyer Act, lawyers who obtained their qualifications in countries or regions outside the Republic of China are foreign lawyers. Foreign lawyers are not allowed to execute their duties without permission from the Ministry of Justice and joining a bar association within 6 months of permission. Deeming that this litigation representative was suspected of committing an offense violating the Lawyer Act, they proactively opened a case, and the Taiwan Bar Association also filed a complaint.
During the investigation, Representative Liu admitted to having been appointed by the company to act as a litigation representative, but denied breaking the law, arguing that he did not practice as a lawyer and appeared in court with the court's permission.
After investigation, the Taichung Prosecutors Office concluded that Representative Liu received 50,000 RMB to serve as a legal consultant, which by nature was not consideration for individual litigation. Recently, they concluded the investigation and decided not to prosecute on the grounds of a lack of profit motive.
The Taiwan Bar Association issued a press release today stating that after reviewing the prosecutor's reasons for concluding the case, they believe there are major errors in fact-finding and the application of the law. In particular, in determining the "intent to profit" element, ignoring the substantive connection between the remuneration and the specific case, and denying profitability based solely on a formal consultant title clearly violates the rules of thumb and could render related regulations useless. The Bar Association expressed deep regret and profound disagreement with this outcome.
The Bar Association believes that the impact of the Taichung Prosecutors Office's view goes beyond individual cases and could have a structural impact on the domestic lawyer certification system. If foreign lawyers without domestic qualifications can substantively participate in litigation and receive remuneration under the guise of corporate legal counsel or consultants without being regulated, it will be tantamount to opening a channel to circumvent the system, weakening professional thresholds, and posing potential risks to the rights of litigants and the foundation of the rule of law.
Furthermore, this case also highlights the deficiencies in the current regulatory mechanism for foreign lawyers engaging in legal affairs in Taiwan and the qualification review for litigation representatives. The Bar Association will continue to communicate with the competent authorities and request institutional reviews and amendments to maintain a sound legal system and the protection of litigants' rights. (Editor: Hsiao Po-wen) 1150419
The Taichung District Court stated that during the first oral argument session on August 13, Year 114, Representative Liu stated he was serving as a litigation representative in his capacity as a legal counsel employed by the defendant company. Because he lacked a Taiwanese lawyer's qualification and could not provide relevant supporting evidence, the presiding judge did not permit the representation, and ordered Representative Liu to provide supplementary materials regarding the questions raised by the plaintiff's litigation representative.
The Taichung District Prosecutors Office believed that according to the Lawyer Act, lawyers who obtained their qualifications in countries or regions outside the Republic of China are foreign lawyers. Foreign lawyers are not allowed to execute their duties without permission from the Ministry of Justice and joining a bar association within 6 months of permission. Deeming that this litigation representative was suspected of committing an offense violating the Lawyer Act, they proactively opened a case, and the Taiwan Bar Association also filed a complaint.
During the investigation, Representative Liu admitted to having been appointed by the company to act as a litigation representative, but denied breaking the law, arguing that he did not practice as a lawyer and appeared in court with the court's permission.
After investigation, the Taichung Prosecutors Office concluded that Representative Liu received 50,000 RMB to serve as a legal consultant, which by nature was not consideration for individual litigation. Recently, they concluded the investigation and decided not to prosecute on the grounds of a lack of profit motive.
The Taiwan Bar Association issued a press release today stating that after reviewing the prosecutor's reasons for concluding the case, they believe there are major errors in fact-finding and the application of the law. In particular, in determining the "intent to profit" element, ignoring the substantive connection between the remuneration and the specific case, and denying profitability based solely on a formal consultant title clearly violates the rules of thumb and could render related regulations useless. The Bar Association expressed deep regret and profound disagreement with this outcome.
The Bar Association believes that the impact of the Taichung Prosecutors Office's view goes beyond individual cases and could have a structural impact on the domestic lawyer certification system. If foreign lawyers without domestic qualifications can substantively participate in litigation and receive remuneration under the guise of corporate legal counsel or consultants without being regulated, it will be tantamount to opening a channel to circumvent the system, weakening professional thresholds, and posing potential risks to the rights of litigants and the foundation of the rule of law.
Furthermore, this case also highlights the deficiencies in the current regulatory mechanism for foreign lawyers engaging in legal affairs in Taiwan and the qualification review for litigation representatives. The Bar Association will continue to communicate with the competent authorities and request institutional reviews and amendments to maintain a sound legal system and the protection of litigants' rights. (Editor: Hsiao Po-wen) 1150419