Measures for the Administration of Securities Legal Services by Law Firms

(Promulgated by the China Securities Regulatory Commission and Ministry of Justice on March 9 2007 and effective as of May 1 2007.)

Order of CSRC and MOJ No.41

PART ONE: GENERAL PROVISIONS

Article 1: These Measures have been formulated pursuant to the Securities Law and Lawyers Law in order to strengthen regulation of the provision of securities-related legal services by law firms, regulate the professional acts of lawyers in the course of activities, such as securities offerings, listings and trading, enhance the mechanism for guarding against legal risks, maintain order in the securities market and protect the lawful rights and interests of investors.

Article 2: These Measures shall govern the provision of securities-related legal services by law firms and the lawyers assigned by them.

For the purposes of the preceding paragraph, the term "securities-related legal services" means the legal services provided by a law firm appointed by a concerned party that consists of preparing and issuing legal opinions and other such documents for securities activities of the concerned party, such as a securities offering, listing and trading.

Article 3: When a law firm and the lawyers assigned by it provide securities-related legal services, they shall comply with laws, administrative regulations and relevant provisions, abide by the principles of honesty, trustworthiness, independence, diligence and responsibility, adhere to lawyers' professional ethics and professional discipline, strictly perform their legal duties and vouch for the truthfulness, accuracy and completeness of the documents they issue.

Article 4: A law firm shall establish a sound risk control system, strengthen its management of the provision of securities-related legal services by its lawyers and improve the level of Securities Law practice of its lawyers.

Article 5: The China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) and its agencies, and the Ministry of Justice and local judicial administrative authorities shall regulate the provision of securities-related legal services by law firms in accordance with the law.

Lawyers' associations shall regulate the provision of securities-related legal services by law firms in accordance with their charters and legal industry standards.

PART TWO: SCOPE OF SERVICES

Article 6: When providing securities-related legal services, a law firm may issue legal opinions in respect of the following matters:

(1) initial public offerings and listings of shares;

(2) securities offerings and listings by listed companies;

(3) takeovers, material asset reorganizations and share buybacks of listed companies;

(4) the implementation of equity incentive plans by listed companies;

(5) the convening of shareholders' general meetings by listed companies;

(6) the direct or indirect offerings of securities abroad by domestic enterprises and the listing and trading abroad of such securities;

(7) the establishment, dissolution and termination of business of, as well as changes in, securities companies, securities investment fund management companies and their branches;

(8) the offering of securities investment funds and the establishment by securities companies of pooled asset management plans;

(9) offerings and listings of securities derivatives; and

(10) other matters as specified by the CSRC.

Article 7: A law firm may accept an appointment by a concerned party to arrange for the preparation of legal documents relating to securities business activities.

Article 8: Law firms that satisfy the following conditions are encouraged to provide securities-related legal services:

(1) having compliant internal management, a sound risk control system, high standards of practice and a good reputation;

(2) having at least 20 practising lawyers, of whom at least five have experience in securities-related legal services;

(3) having valid practice liability insurance; and

(4) not having been subjected to administrative penalties during the most recent two years for illegal practice.

Article 9: Lawyers who meet any of the following conditions and have not been subjected to administrative penalties during the most recent two years for illegal practice are encouraged to provide securities-related legal services:

(1) having provided securities-related legal services during the most recent three years;

(2) having been in practice continuously during the most recent three years and the lawyer(s) with whom they intend to jointly practise has/have provided securities-related legal services during the most recent three years; or

(3) having continuously engaged in teaching or research in the field of securities law during the most recent three years or having received training in Securities Law practice.

Article 10: A lawyer who has had his practice certificate revoked may never again provide securities-related legal services.

A lawyer who has been banned from the securities market by the CSRC or suspended by the judicial administrative authority may not provide securities-related legal services during his ban or while suspended.

Article 11: A law firm may not issue legal opinions for both the issuer, on the one hand, and the sponsor and underwriting securities company, on the other hand, in a securities offering, or issue legal opinions for both the acquirer and the target listed company in a takeover or issue legal opinions for different materially interested parties in a securities business activity.

If a lawyer serves as a director, supervisor or member of the senior management personnel of a company or an affiliate thereof, or if another circumstance exists that prejudices his independence, his law firm may not accept an appointment from that company to provide it securities-related legal services.

PART THREE: SERVICE RULES

Article 12: When a law firm and the lawyers assigned by it provide securities-related legal services, they shall perform their review and verification obligations diligently and prudently in accordance with legally formulated practice rules.

When carrying out a review and verification, a lawyer may do so by means, such as a face to face interview, examination of written materials, onsite investigation, inquiry, verification by letter, calculation and checking.

Article 13: When a law firm and the lawyers assigned by it provide securities-related legal services, they shall review and verify in accordance with the law the truthfulness, accuracy and completeness of the documents and information on which they are relying. Prior to carrying out the review and verification, they shall prepare a review and verification plan to clarify the matters that require review and verification and appropriately revise the same in light of the progress in the matter.

Article 14: When a lawyer is to issue a legal opinion, he shall perform his obligation of special attention as a legal professional in respect of law related matters and, in respect of other matters, perform his obligation of general attention as an ordinary person. The documents that he prepares and issues may not contain false or misleading statements or material omissions.

Article 15: A lawyer may use the documents directly obtained from state authorities, organizations whose function includes administration of public affairs, accounting firms, asset appraisal institutions, credit rating agencies and notary offices (hereinafter referred to as "Public Institutions") as the basis for issuing his legal opinion, provided that he performs his obligation of attention specified in Article 14 hereof and gives an explanation thereof. Documents not directly obtained from a Public Institution may only be used as a basis for issuing a legal opinion after review and verification.

The copies and duplicates that a lawyer has made of materials from a Public Institution may serve as a basis for issuing a legal opinion after the same have been confirmed by the institution, and provided that the lawyer performs his obligation of attention specified in Article 14 hereof and gives an explanation thereof. If such a copy or reproduction has not been confirmed by the institution, it may only serve as a basis for issuing a legal opinion after review and verification of the relevant information.

Article 16: When a lawyer is conducting a review and verification, and requires a determination by a securities service institution, such as an accounting firm and asset appraisal institution, he/she shall himself/herself engage or require the client to engage such securities service institution to issue an opinion.

Article 17: When a lawyer practices Securities Law, the client shall provide him/her true and complete relevant materials and may not refuse to provide or conceal the same or provide false information.

If a lawyer discovers that the materials provided to him by the client contain false or misleading statements or material omissions, or that the client has committed a major violation of the law, he shall require the client to correct and supplement such materials. If the client refuses to correct or supplement the materials, the lawyer may refuse to continue the appointment and, in accordance with provisions, shall perform his/her obligation of reporting to the relevant authorities.

Article 18: A lawyer shall classify and collate the work records generated in the course of the review and verification and the materials obtained, provide an explanation of the facts and relevant state provisions on which his/her specific opinions expressed in the legal opinion or other such document is based as well as of his/her analysis and judgment, and fashion the same into a clear working draft.

Article 19: The working draft shall be preserved by the law firm that issued the legal opinion for a period of not less than seven years. If the CSRC provides otherwise in respect of the preservation period, such provisions shall prevail.

PART FOUR: LEGAL OPINIONS

Article 20: A legal opinion is a clear and conclusive opinion issued by a law firm and the lawyers assigned by it concerning the lawfulness of the matters for which they were appointed by the client and is an important basis on which the client, investors, the CSRC and its agencies confirm whether the relevant matters are lawful. A legal opinion shall be issued by a lawyer based on the truthfulness, accuracy and completeness of the documents and information that he/she reviewed and verified, and in accordance with laws, administrative regulations and relevant provisions.

Article 21: A legal opinion shall set forth the relevant materials, facts, specific review and verification results, relevant state provisions and conclusive opinions.

Vague terms and phrases, such as "basically complies with", "did not discover", etc., may not be used in legal opinions.

Article 22: In the event any of the following circumstances exists, the lawyer shall give an explanation thereof in his legal opinion and fully disclose its effect on, and risks to, the relevant matters:

(1) all or part of the client's matters fail to comply with CSRC provisions;

(2) facts are unclear and materials are insufficient rendering them incapable of fully reflecting the circumstances of the client;

(3) the scope of the review and verification was restricted by objective conditions, making the obtaining of evidence that ought to have been available impossible;

(4) the lawyer requested that the client correct or supplement the materials but the client failed to do so;

(5) the lawyer performed his obligation of diligence and due care but remains unable to arrive at an accurate determination of all or part of the matters; or

(6) other circumstances that the lawyer deems as requiring an explanation.

Article 23: The opinion to be issued by a lawyer who provides securities-related legal services as specified in Article 6 hereof shall be discussed and checked by his law firm, and the relevant record thereof shall be made and kept as a working draft.

Article 24: The opinion to be issued by a lawyer who provides securities-related legal services as specified in Article 6 hereof shall be signed by two practising lawyers and the person in charge of his/her law firm, and bear the stamp of the law firm and the signing date.

Article 25: The specific contents and format of a legal opinion shall comply with the relevant provisions of the CSRC.

Article 26: If a material matter arises or the lawyer discovers that he/she needs to supplement his/her opinions after the legal opinion or other such document was submitted to the CSRC or its agency, he/she shall promptly submit a supplementary opinion.

PART FIVE: REGULATION

Article 27: If, while providing securities-related legal services, a lawyer or his/her law firm has a case opened against him/her/it and is investigated by the relevant authorities due to suspicion of having committed a violation of the law, he/she/it shall truthfully notify the client thereof in a timely manner and expressly warn the client of the possible legal consequences.

Article 28: When a lawyer or law firm issues a legal opinion to a client, he/she/it shall, in accordance with provisions, additionally submit relevant information on his/her/its past provision of securities-related legal services. When the client submits its documents including the legal opinion to the CSRC and its agency, it shall, in accordance with provisions, additionally submit relevant information on the past provision of securities-related legal services of the lawyer and law firm.

Article 29: The CSRC and its agencies, the judicial administrative authority and the lawyers' association shall establish a database and open integrity files for lawyers who provide securities-related legal services to record the penalties, etc., incurred by lawyers and law firms that provide securities-related legal services and shall disclose the same in accordance with provisions.

Article 30: If the CSRC or its agency, when reviewing the legal opinion issued by a lawyer, has any doubts as to its truthfulness, accuracy or completeness, it may require him/her to give an explanation and/or supplement the opinion, or require production of the working draft for its review. The lawyer and law firm shall cooperate

Article 31: The CSRC or its agency may take measures, such as ordering rectification, giving a regulatory discussion and issuing a written warning if a lawyer or his/her law firm, in the course of providing securities-related legal services, are characterized by any of the following circumstances:

(1) he/she/it failed to act with due diligence in accordance with Article 12 hereof when reviewing and verifying the truthfulness, accuracy and completeness of the documents and information on which they relied;

(2) he/she/it failed to prepare a review and verification plan in accordance with Article 13 hereof;

(3) he/she/it failed to require the client to correct or supplement the materials or to perform their reporting obligation in accordance with Article 17 hereof;

(4) he/she/it failed to provide explanations in a legal opinion in accordance with Article 22 hereof;

(5) he/she/it failed to discuss and check a legal opinion in accordance with Article 23 hereof;

(6) he/she/it failed to perform their notification obligation in accordance with Article 27 hereof;

(7) the basis of the legal opinion is inappropriate or insufficient, or the legal analysis is clearly erroneous;

(8) the conclusion reached in the legal opinion is ambiguous or is inconsistent with the review and verification results;

(9) he/she/it failed to prepare a working draft in accordance with Article 18 hereof;

(10) he/she/it failed to preserve the working draft in accordance with Article 19 hereof;

(11) the legal opinion fails to comply with the specified contents or format;

(12) the legal opinion or other such document contains document quality problems, such as serious typographical errors; or

(13) another instance of a violation of service rules exists.

Article 32: If the CSRC or its agency renders a decision to give a regulatory discussion, it shall notify the lawyer or the person in charge of the law firm in writing of the target, reasons, time, place, etc., of or for the regulatory discussion. The lawyer or person in charge of the law firm shall submit to the regulatory discussion as required by the notice.

When the CSRC or its agent is to give a lawyer or the person in charge of the law firm a regulatory discussion, it may do so in conjunction with the judicial administrative authority or may entrust the judicial administrative authority to give the discussion.

When a regulatory discussion is given, at least two members of the working personnel shall be present and a written record of the regulatory discussion shall be made.

Article 33: If the CSRC, its agency or the judicial administrative authority takes measures, such as ordering rectification, giving a regulatory discussion or issuing a written warning against a lawyer or the person in charge of the law firm, the lawyer or the law firm shall correct the problem as required and improve his/her/its level of securities-related legal services.

Article 34: If a lawyer or the person in charge of the law firm fails to subject himself/herself to a regulatory discussion, or fails to rectify the problem as required, the CSRC, its agency or the judicial administrative authority may order him/her to undergo rectification within a specified period of time.

Article 35: If a lawyer or law firm has a case opened against him/her/it and is investigated by the CSRC, its agency or the judicial administrative authority or is ordered to undergo rectification, the CSRC and its agency will not accept and review legal opinions and other such documents issued by the lawyer or law firm while he/she/it is being investigated or is undergoing rectification.

PART SIX: LEGAL LIABILITY

Article 36: If a law firm and the lawyers whom it assigns violate the Securities Law or administrative regulations on securities administration in their provision of securities-related legal services and ought to be subjected to administrative penalties, such penalties shall be imposed by the CSRC in accordance with the Securities Law and administrative regulations on securities administration. If the penalty of ordering the law firm to suspend operations and undergo rectification, and the penalty of ordering the lawyer to suspend practice or revoking his/her practice certificate ought to be imposed, such penalties shall be imposed by the judicial administrative authority in accordance with the law.

Article 37: If a law firm that provides securities-related legal services fails to act with due diligence, resulting in the documents prepared and issued by it containing false or misleading statements or material omissions, the CSRC shall impose penalties in accordance with Article 223 of the Securities Law.

Article 38: If a law firm that provides securities-related legal services fails to preserve working drafts in accordance with Article 19 hereof, the CSRC shall impose penalties in accordance with Article 225 of the Securities Law.

Article 39: If a law firm that provides securities-related legal services is characterized by any of the circumstances specified in Items (1) to (8) of Article 31 hereof, the CSRC shall impose penalties in accordance with the third paragraph of Article 226 of the Securities Law.

Article 40: If a lawyer who provides securities-related legal services violates the Securities Law, relevant administrative regulations or these Measures and the circumstances are serious, the CSRC may take the measure of banning him/her from the securities market in accordance with Article 233 of the Securities Law.

Article 41: If a law firm and the lawyers whom it assigns, in their provision of securities-related legal services, violate the Lawyers Law or provisions on the administration of practice by lawyers, the judicial administrative authority shall impose the concomitant administrative penalties.

If a law firm and the lawyers whom it assigns violate legal industry standards in their provision of securities-related legal services, the lawyers' association shall impose the concomitant industry penalties.

Article 42: If a law firm and the lawyers whom it assigns provide securities-related legal services in violation of relevant provisions, which violation is suspected of establishing a criminal offence, the case shall be transferred, in accordance with the law, to the judicial authority for handling.

Article 43: In investigating violations of the law by law firms and lawyers that provide securities-related legal services, the CSRC and its agency and the judicial administrative authority shall mutually cooperate, exchange information and establish a coordination and consulting mechanism. In a case where penalties ought to be imposed by the other party in accordance with the law, the case shall be transferred to the other party for handling in a timely manner. Once a party has imposed penalties, it shall notify the other party in writing of the penalty results, with a copy to the lawyers' association.

PART SEVEN: SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS

Article 44: The provision of futures-related legal services by law firms and the lawyers assigned by them shall, mutatis mutandis, be handled in accordance with these Measures.

Article 45: These Measures shall be effective as of May 1 2007. The China Securities Regulatory Commission, Circular on Strengthening Administration of the Provision of Securities-related Legal Services by Lawyers (Zheng Jian Fa Zi [1998] No.1) shall be repealed simultaneously.

 
  【发布单位】中国证券监督管理委员会、司法部
  【发布文号】中国证券监督管理委员会令第41号
  【发布日期】2007-03-09
  【生效日期】2007-05-01
  【失效日期】-----------
  【所属类别】国家法律法规
  【文件来源】中国证券监督管理委员会
 

律师事务所从事证券法律业务管理办法

(中国证券监督管理委员会令第41号)




  《律师事务所从事证券法律业务管理办法》已经中国证券监督管理委员会主席办公会议和司法部部务会议审议通过,现予公布,自2007年5月1日起施行。

中国证券监督管理委员会主席:尚福林
中华人民共和国司法部部长:吴爱英
二○○七年三月九日


律师事务所从事证券法律业务管理办法

  第一章 总 则

  第一条 为了加强对律师事务所从事证券法律业务活动的监督管理,规范律师在证券发行、上市和交易等活动中的执业行为,完善法律风险防范机制,维护证券市场秩序,保护投资者的合法权益,根据《证券法》和《律师法》,制定本办法。

  第二条 律师事务所及其指派的律师从事证券法律业务,适用本办法。

  前款所称证券法律业务,是指律师事务所接受当事人委托,为其证券发行、上市和交易等证券业务活动,提供的制作、出具法律意见书等文件的法律服务。

  第三条 律师事务所及其指派的律师从事证券法律业务,应当遵守法律、行政法规及相关规定,遵循诚实、守信、独立、勤勉、尽责的原则,恪守律师职业道德和执业纪律,严格履行法定职责,保证其所出具文件的真实性、准确性、完整性。

  第四条 律师事务所应当建立健全风险控制制度,加强对律师从事证券法律业务的管理,提高律师证券法律业务水平。

  第五条 中国证券监督管理委员会(以下简称中国证监会)及其派出机构、司法部及地方司法行政机关依法对律师事务所从事证券法律业务进行监督管理。

  律师协会依照章程和律师行业规范对律师事务所从事证券法律业务进行自律管理。

  第二章 业务范围

  第六条 律师事务所从事证券法律业务,可以为下列事项出具法律意见:

  (一)首次公开发行股票及上市;

  (二)上市公司发行证券及上市;

  (三)上市公司的收购、重大资产重组及股份回购;

  (四)上市公司实行股权激励计划;

  (五)上市公司召开股东大会;

  (六)境内企业直接或者间接到境外发行证券、将其证券在境外上市交易;

  (七)证券公司、证券投资基金管理公司及其分支机构的设立、变更、解散、终止;

  (八)证券投资基金的募集、证券公司集合资产管理计划的设立;

  (九)证券衍生品种的发行及上市;

  (十)中国证监会规定的其他事项。

  第七条 律师事务所可以接受当事人的委托,组织制作与证券业务活动相关的法律文件。

  第八条 鼓励具备下列条件的律师事务所从事证券法律业务:

  (一)内部管理规范,风险控制制度健全,执业水准高,社会信誉良好;

  (二)有20名以上执业律师, 其中5名以上曾从事过证券法律业务;

  (三)已经办理有效的执业责任保险;

  (四)最近2年未因违法执业行为受到行政处罚。

  第九条 鼓励具备下列条件之一,并且最近2年未因违法执业行为受到行政处罚的律师从事证券法律业务:

  (一)最近3年从事过证券法律业务;

  (二)最近3年连续执业,且拟与其共同承办业务的律师最近3年从事过证券法律业务;

  (三)最近3年连续从事证券法律领域的教学、研究工作,或者接受过证券法律业务的行业培训。

  第十条 律师被吊销执业证书的,不得再从事证券法律业务。

  律师被中国证监会采取证券市场禁入措施或者被司法行政机关给予停止执业处罚的,在规定禁入或者停止执业的期间不得从事证券法律业务。

  第十一条 同一律师事务所不得同时为同一证券发行的发行人和保荐人、承销的证券公司出具法律意见,不得同时为同一收购行为的收购人和被收购的上市公司出具法律意见,不得在其他同一证券业务活动中为具有利害关系的不同当事人出具法律意见。

  律师担任公司及其关联方董事、监事、高级管理人员,或者存在其他影响律师独立性的情形的,该律师所在律师事务所不得接受所任职公司的委托,为该公司提供证券法律服务。

  第三章 业务规则

  第十二条 律师事务所及其指派的律师从事证券法律业务,应当按照依法制定的业务规则,勤勉尽责,审慎履行核查和验证义务。

  律师进行核查和验证,可以采用面谈、书面审查、实地调查、查询和函证、计算、复核等方法。

  第十三条 律师事务所及其指派的律师从事证券法律业务,应当依法对所依据的文件资料内容的真实性、准确性、完整性进行核查和验证;在进行核查和验证前,应当编制核查和验证计划,明确需要核查和验证的事项,并根据业务的进展情况,对其予以适当调整。

  第十四条 律师在出具法律意见时,对与法律相关的业务事项应当履行法律专业人士特别的注意义务,对其他业务事项履行普通人一般的注意义务,其制作、出具的文件不得有虚假记载、误导性陈述或者重大遗漏。

  第十五条 律师从国家机关、具有管理公共事务职能的组织、会计师事务所、资产评估机构、资信评级机构、公证机构(以下统称公共机构)直接取得的文书,可以作为出具法律意见的依据,但律师应当履行本办法第十四条规定的注意义务并加以说明;对于不是从公共机构直接取得的文书,经核查和验证后方可作为出具法律意见的依据。

  律师从公共机构抄录、复制的材料,经该机构确认后,可以作为出具法律意见的依据,但律师应当履行本办法第十四条规定的注意义务并加以说明;未取得公共机构确认的,对相关内容进行核查和验证后方可作为出具法律意见的依据。

  第十六条 律师进行核查和验证,需要会计师事务所、资产评估机构等证券服务机构作出判断的,应当直接委托或者要求委托人委托会计师事务所、资产评估机构等证券服务机构出具意见。

  第十七条 律师在从事证券法律业务时,委托人应当向其提供真实、完整的有关材料,不得拒绝、隐匿、谎报。

  律师发现委托人提供的材料有虚假记载、误导性陈述、重大遗漏,或者委托人有重大违法行为的,应当要求委托人纠正、补充;委托人拒不纠正、补充的,律师可以拒绝继续接受委托,同时应当按照规定向有关方面履行报告义务。

  第十八条 律师应当归类整理核查和验证中形成的工作记录和获取的材料,并对法律意见书等文件中各具体意见所依据的事实、国家相关规定以及律师的分析判断作出说明,形成记录清晰的工作底稿。

  第十九条 工作底稿由出具法律意见的律师事务所保存,保存期限不得少于7年;中国证监会对保存期限另有规定的,从其规定。

  第四章 法律意见

  第二十条 法律意见是律师事务所及其指派的律师针对委托人委托事项的合法性,出具的明确结论性意见,是委托人、投资者和中国证监会及其派出机构确认相关事项是否合法的重要依据。法律意见应当由律师在核查和验证所依据的文件资料内容的真实性、准确性、完整性的基础上,依据法律、行政法规及相关规定作出。

  第二十一条 法律意见书应当列明相关材料、事实、具体核查和验证结果、国家有关规定和结论性意见。

  法律意见不得使用“基本符合”、“未发现”等含糊措辞。

  第二十二条 有下列情形之一的,律师应当在法律意见中予以说明,并充分揭示其对相关事项的影响程度及其风险:

  (一)委托人的全部或者部分事项不符合中国证监会规定;

  (二)事实不清楚,材料不充分,不能全面反映委托人情况;

  (三)核查和验证范围受到客观条件的限制,无法取得应有证据;

  (四)律师已要求委托人纠正、补充而委托人未予纠正、补充;

  (五)律师已依法履行勤勉尽责义务,仍不能对全部或者部分事项作出准确判断;

  (六)律师认为应当予以说明的其他情形。

  第二十三条 律师从事本办法第六条规定的证券法律业务,其所出具的法律意见应当经所在律师事务所讨论复核,并制作相关记录作为工作底稿留存。

  第二十四条 律师从事本办法第六条规定的证券法律业务,其所出具的法律意见应当由2名执业律师和所在律师事务所负责人签名,加盖该律师事务所印章,并签署日期。

  第二十五条 法律意见书的具体内容和格式,应当符合中国证监会的相关规定。

  第二十六条 法律意见书等文件在报送中国证监会及其派出机构后,发生重大事项或者律师发现需要补充意见的,应当及时提出补充意见。

  第五章 监督管理

  第二十七条 律师从事证券法律业务期间,律师或者其所在律师事务所因涉嫌违法被有关机关立案调查的,该律师、律师事务所应当及时如实告知委托人,并明确提示可能的法律后果。

  第二十八条 律师、律师事务所在向委托人出具法律意见时,应当按照规定同时提交其已从事证券法律业务的有关情况;委托人向中国证监会及其派出机构报送含有法律意见的文件时,应当按照规定同时提交律师、律师事务所已从事证券法律业务的有关情况。

  第二十九条 中国证监会及其派出机构、司法行政机关及律师协会建立律师从事证券法律业务的资料库和诚信档案,记载律师、律师事务所从事证券法律业务所受处理处罚等情况,并按照规定予以公开。

  第三十条 中国证监会及其派出机构在审核律师出具的法律意见时,对其真实性、准确性、完整性有疑义的,可以要求律师作出解释、补充,或者调阅其工作底稿。律师和律师事务所应当配合。

  第三十一条 律师、律师事务所从事证券法律业务有下列情形之一的,中国证监会及其派出机构可以采取责令改正、监管谈话、出具警示函等措施:

  (一)未按照本办法第十二条的规定勤勉尽责,对所依据的文件资料内容的真实性、准确性、完整性进行核查和验证;

  (二)未按照本办法第十三条的规定编制核查和验证计划;

  (三)未按照本办法第十七条的规定要求委托人予以纠正、补充,或者履行报告义务;

  (四)未按照本办法第二十二条的规定在法律意见中作出说明;

  (五)未按照本办法第二十三条的规定讨论复核法律意见;

  (六)未按照本办法第二十七条的规定履行告知义务;

  (七)法律意见的依据不适当或者不充分,法律分析有明显失误;

  (八)法律意见的结论不明确或者与核查和验证的结果不对应;

  (九)未按照本办法第十八条的规定制作工作底稿;

  (十)未按照本办法第十九条的规定保存工作底稿;

  (十一)法律意见书不符合规定内容或者格式;

  (十二)法律意见书等文件存在严重文字错误等文书质量问题;

  (十三)违反业务规则的其他情形。

  第三十二条 中国证监会及其派出机构作出监管谈话决定的,应当将监管谈话的对象、原因、时间、地点等以书面形式通知律师或者律师事务所负责人。律师或者律师事务所负责人应当按照通知要求,接受监管谈话。

  中国证监会及其派出机构对律师或者律师事务所负责人监管谈话,可以会同或者委托司法行政机关进行。

  进行监管谈话,应当有2名以上工作人员在场,并对监管谈话的内容作出书面记录。

  第三十三条 中国证监会及其派出机构或者司法行政机关对律师、律师事务所采取责令改正、监管谈话、出具警示函等措施的,律师、律师事务所应当按照要求改正所存在的问题,提高证券法律业务水平。

  第三十四条 律师、律师事务所负责人未按照规定接受监管谈话,或者未按照要求改正所存在问题的,中国证监会及其派出机构或者司法行政机关可以责令其限期整改。

  第三十五条 律师、律师事务所被中国证监会及其派出机构、司法行政机关立案调查或者责令整改的,在调查、整改期间,中国证监会及其派出机构暂不受理和审核该律师、律师事务所出具的法律意见书等文件。

  第六章 法律责任

  第三十六条 律师事务所及其指派的律师从事证券法律业务,违反《证券法》和有关证券管理的行政法规,应当给予行政处罚的,由中国证监会依据《证券法》和有关证券管理的行政法规实施处罚;需要对律师事务所给予停业整顿处罚、对律师给予停止执业或者吊销律师执业证书处罚的,由司法行政机关依法实施处罚。

  第三十七条 律师事务所从事证券法律业务,未勤勉尽责,所制作、出具的文件有虚假记载、误导性陈述或者重大遗漏的,由中国证监会依照《证券法》第二百二十三条的规定实施处罚。

  第三十八条 律师事务所从事证券法律业务,未按照本办法第十九条的规定保存工作底稿的,由中国证监会依照《证券法》第二百二十五条的规定实施处罚。

  第三十九条 律师事务所从事证券法律业务,有本办法第三十一条第(一)项至第(八)项规定情形之一的,由中国证监会依照《证券法》第二百二十六条第三款的规定实施处罚。

  第四十条 律师从事证券法律业务,违反《证券法》、有关行政法规和本办法规定,情节严重的,中国证监会可以依照《证券法》第二百三十三条的规定,对其采取证券市场禁入的措施。

  第四十一条 律师事务所及其指派的律师从事证券法律业务,违反《律师法》和有关律师执业管理规定的,由司法行政机关给予相应的行政处罚。

  律师事务所及其指派的律师从事证券法律业务,违反律师行业规范的,由律师协会给予相应的行业惩戒。

  第四十二条 律师事务所及其指派的律师违反规定从事证券法律业务,涉嫌犯罪的,依法移送司法机关处理。

  第四十三条 中国证监会及其派出机构、司法行政机关在查处律师事务所、律师从事证券法律业务的违法行为的工作中,应当相互配合,互通情况,建立协调协商机制。对于依法应当由对方实施处罚的,及时移送对方处理;一方实施处罚后,应当将处罚结果书面告知另一方,并抄送律师协会。

  第七章 附 则

  第四十四条 律师事务所及其指派的律师从事期货法律业务,参照本办法执行。

  第四十五条 本办法自2007年5月1日起施行。《中国证券监督管理委员会关于加强律师从事证券法律业务管理的通知》(证监法字[1998]1号)同时废止。
New Regulations for Law Firms' Securities Practice: Loosening Access, Strengthening Accountability China Law & PracticeLondon: May 2007. pg. 1
Abstract (Summary)

In the field of securities law, legal practitioners have, until recently, been subject to a qualification approval system, which required approval from regulatory authorities. With the new Measures issued by the CSRC and the Ministry of Justice, this passive system of regulation has been eliminated, in favour of giving regulatory authorities greater powers of discretion in validating legal opinions in terms of authenticity, accuracy and integrity. This article explains the new rules, and how securities lawyers can ensure compliance.

Full Text (1353  words)
Copyright Euromoney Institutional Investor PLC May 2007

 

In the field of securities law, legal practitioners have, until recently, been subject to a qualification approval system, which required approval from regulatory authorities. With the new Measures issued by the CSRC and the Ministry of Justice, this passive system of regulation has been eliminated, in favour of giving regulatory authorities greater powers of discretion in validating legal opinions in terms of authenticity, accuracy and integrity. Tiejun Shi and Shiwei Zhang explain the new rules, and how securities lawyers can ensure compliance.

By Tiejun Shi and Shiwei Zhang, Jun He Law Offices ( Beijing )

John Du, Jun He Law Offices ( New York )

Among the many recent developments in China's regulation of the securities industry is one that directly affects law firms - the Measures for the Administration of the Provision of Securities Legal Services by Law Firms (the Measures), jointly issued by the China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) and the Ministry of Justice of the PRC on March 9 2007, effective May 1 2007. These Measures change the previous qualification-based regulatory scheme for securities lawyers to a conduct-based regulatory mechanism of regulating the practice of securities law.

Under the previous qualification-based regulatory scheme, a lawyer was not allowed to practice securities law unless he or she had obtained prior approval from the regulatory authorities. The current Measures have abolished the prior approval on qualification, but focus on the process, content and quality of the legal services provided by securities lawyers. As a securities-related transaction is often a continually evolving process, the regulatory authorities are required to provide timely and dynamic regulation of legal service activities. The Measures have largely reflected the philosophical transition of the regulatory authorities from passive and static regulation to proactive and dynamic regulation.

Scope of Securities Legal Services

The Measures comprehensively and systematically define, for the first time, the scope of securities legal services. According to the Measures, "Securities Legal Service" refers to the legal services of (i) the formulation and issuance of written legal opinions and (ii) the preparation of other documents provided by law firms engaged by their clients with respect to securities transactions. According to the Measures, a law firm needs to issue legal opinions with respect to the following matters:

(1) initial public offerings and listings of shares;

(2) the issuance and listing of securities by listed companies;

(3) the acquisition or significant restructuring of listed companies, and the repurchase by listed companies of their outstanding shares;

(4) the equity incentive plans carried out by listed companies;

(5) the holding of a shareholders meeting by listed companies;

(6) domestic enterprises directly or indirectly issuing securities and/or listing overseas;

(7) the establishment, modification, dissolution or termination of securities companies, securities investment fund management companies, and their branches;

(8) raising of securities investment funds, and establishment of integrated asset management plans of securities companies;

(9) issuance and listing of securities derivatives; and

(10) other matters prescribed by the CSRC.

Rules for Securities Legal Practice

The Measures set forth rules for the exercise of the examination and verification of relevant documents by securities lawyers in providing securities legal services. The Measures also require law firms to exercise due diligence in examining and verifying the documents, based on which legal opinions will be issued when providing securities legal services, including their authenticity, accuracy and integrity. Before conducting the examination and verification, a law firm shall formulate an examination and verification plan to definitively list the items requiring examination and verification, adjusted to the development of the provision of legal services. A law firm may issue legal opinions based on the documents directly obtained from state organs, organizations managing public affairs, accounting firms, asset appraisal institutions, credit rating institutions and notarization institutions. However, the documents that are not directly obtained from pubic organizations may not serve as a basis for issuing legal opinions until they are found to be true upon examination and verification. The Measures expressly state that a lawyer shall, when issuing legal opinions, perform the obligation of special and heightened care of a legal professional with regard to legal issues, and shall perform the obligation of general care of a common person with regard to other business matters. The documents must not contain any false and misleading statements or make any major omissions. These provisions set forth a clear standard of care for lawyers practicing securities law.

Required Content and Format for Legal OpinionS

"Legal Opinion" is defined in the Measures as the explicitly conclusive opinions issued by law firms about the legality of the matters entrusted by their clients and the basis for clients, investors, CSRC and its local offices to confirm whether such matters are lawful or not. Legal opinions are the key work products of law firms in providing securities-related legal services. Legal opinions can only be issued in accordance with the applicable laws, administrative regulations and provisions, after the lawyers have examined and verified the authenticity, accuracy and integrity of the contents in the documents and materials provided by their clients with respect to the subject matter. According to the Measures, a written legal opinion is required to cite the relevant materials, facts, specific examination and verification results, related state provisions and conclusive opinions with respect to the subject matters entrusted to them by their clients, and no ambiguous expressions such as "substantially complying with" or "having not discovered" may occur in legal opinions. If any of the following are the case, the law firm involved shall specify as such in its legal opinion, and sufficiently disclose its impact on the relevant matters and the risks that may occur:

(1) all or part of the matters entrusted by the client are in violation of the provisions of the CSRC;

(2) the facts and the materials obtained from the client are unclear and insufficient and cannot comprehensively reflect the situation of the client;

(3) the examination and verification of documents provided by the client are prevented by objective conditions, and as a result, it is impossible for the law firm to obtain necessary evidence;

(4) the law firm has requested its client to remedy incompliance and to supplement supporting documents, but the client has failed to do so;

(5) the law firm has diligently and dutifully performed its obligations but still cannot make a definitive judgement about all or part of the subject matter; and

(6) other circumstances that the law firm thinks should be explained.

If a law firm cannot issue such a legal opinion, it must in the legal opinion specify the reasons for not being able to do so, and shall sufficiently disclose the effect and risk of the relevant matters. These provisions in the Measures set forth clear rules for law firms issuing legal opinions on securities-related business, for the securities market participants to more effectively and sufficiently disclose information.

Supervision and Administration

Despite the elimination of the qualification approval system for securities lawyers, the Measures have granted the regulatory authorities sweeping authority to regulate the services provided and thus hold securities lawyers accountable. Based on the Measures, if the regulatory authorities have any doubt about the authenticity, accuracy and integrity of a legal opinion or other document issued by a law firm, they may demand the law firm to provide explanations and supplement supporting documents, or even consult its working papers. If a law firm fails to issue legal opinions in accordance with the provisions in the Measures, the regulatory authorities may order it to remedy such incompliance, conduct regulatory interviews with the law firm, or issue a warning letter. If the law firm refuses or does not show up at the requested interview with the regulatory authorities, or fails to remedy its incompliance as required by the regulatory authorities, the regulatory authorities may order the law firm to carry out rectification within a specified time limit. Regulatory bodies now have the authority to refuse to accept the legal opinions and other legal documents issued by any law firm, subject to investigation or rectification. These provisions may force law firms to strengthen their internal management and to improve the quality of the legal documents they issue.

 

China's Legal Services Market: Survival of the Fittest China Law & PracticeLondon: May 2007. pg. 1
Abstract (Summary)

China's large but fledgling legal service market has proved to be very attractive to foreign lawyers in recent years. According to research efforts by authors Charlie Xiaolin Wang and Xiaowei Chen, both experienced legal practitioners, Chinese law firms and foreign law firms play different roles in the legal service market in China. Foreign law firms have certain advantages over Chinese law firms, in such areas as experience, specialization and management. But local firms also have an edge over their foreign counterparts in other areas such as cultural understanding and business networks. So who is taking the lead and where do these firms fit into the big picture.

Full Text (4092  words)
Copyright Euromoney Institutional Investor PLC May 2007

 

China's large but fledgling legal service market has proved to be very attractive to foreign lawyers in recent years. According to research efforts by authors Charlie Xiaolin Wang and Xiaowei Chen, both experienced legal practitioners, Chinese law firms and foreign law firms play different roles in the legal service market in China. Foreign law firms have certain advantages over Chinese law firms, in such areas as experience, specialization and management. But local firms also have an edge over their foreign counterparts in other areas such as cultural understanding and business networks. So who is taking the lead and where do these firms fit into the big picture.

By Xiaowei Chen, Beijing Chang An Law Firm 1 and Charlie Xiaolin Wang, Wang & Nance 2

The number of legal services organizations in China totals approximately 51,000 offices, consisting of law offices, notarization offices, patent proxy offices, trademark proxy offices, copyright proxy office, grass-roots legal service offices as well as social legal consultation organizations, with about 450,000 practitioners. Among them, there are 12,428 law firms. They account for 24.3% of the total social legal service organizations. According to data disclosed in Legal Daily dated January 22 2007 3, there were 169 overseas law firms and 72 Hong Kong law firms in China, which make up approximately 1.9% of all law firms in China.

In July 2006, the All China Lawyers Association announced that the number of legal practitioners in China had reached 153,846, with 114,471 full-time lawyers, 7,418 part-time lawyers, and 31,957 legal assistants. More than 70% of the certified lawyers have a bachelor's degree, while over 15,000 also have a master's or doctorate degree. With a population of over 1.3 billion, China has one lawyer for every 8,544 people.

Chinese law firms and Chinese lawyers are major participants in the legal services market in China. However, with the globalization of trade, finance and investment, overseas law firms and their representatives have gained a foothold in China's legal services market.

Legal services work has extended from traditional lawsuits and civil representation of parties in court to new fields like finance, securities, futures trading, corporate mergers and acquisitions, the IT industry, and others. Legal services are diversifying and becoming more important for the implementation of national laws, safeguarding the public's legitimate rights and interests, stabilizing social order, maintaining and protecting fair market practices, and regulating activities in capital markets.

With the reform and opening up of the Chinese market as a whole, China's legal services industry has gradually entered the international market. Globalization and liberalization of legal services will be central to the development of China's legal services industry.

CHINA'S LEGAL SERVICES MARKET

Market Scale

Table 1 below shows that the proportion of legal services revenue to GDP in China is much lower than that in the USA. This reflects the gap that remains between China and more developed countries. However, it also shows that legal services in China have great development potential.

In addition, the growth in Chinese legal services revenues from 2003 to 2005 shows that China's legal services industry is developing rapidly, with a compound annual growth rate of 50.29%. With the continued development of the Chinese economy and the opening up of China's services industry, the revenues of the legal services industry should continue to grow rapidly in the future.

China currently has over 210,000 judges, more than 160,000 procurators, over 120,000 certified lawyers and 12,000 certified notaries. Since the introduction of a national judicial examination system in 2002, an average of nearly 20,000 people have attained certificates to engage in legal careers each year.

Market Structure

In general, lawsuits, the main business in the Chinese legal services market at present, take up 75% of the market as a whole 4. Other practice areas, such as real-estate, securities, intellectual property, arbitration and M&A, are relatively mature. Meanwhile, some non-litigation business such as foreign investment, international trade, overseas initial public offerings and overseas M&As are being given more and more attention by law firms.

The Chinese legal services market can be classified into three market levels: the low-end market - dealing with various legal needs and disputes in the domestic market; the middle market - typically legal services that resolve disputes between domestic and foreign people; and the high-end market - legal services related to international capital, such as international project cooperation, investment and financing, overseas IPOs, multinational M&As, and other such deals. International law firms have rich experience in the high-end market, and have an obvious advantage in this field.

Regional Markets

The development of China's legal service industry has geographically followed the development of the Chinese economy. The most developed areas for legal services are mainly Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, and Shenzhen. The total income for legal services in Beijing was about

Rmb7 billion in 2006, and the top-earning firm for the city had an income of Rmb360 million for the year. The income in Shanghai was about

Rmb3 billion in 2006 and the top office earned more than Rmb150 million in 2005. The annual business income of lawyers in Guangdong for 2005 was approximately Rmb2 billion, while that of Shenzhen alone was Rmb1.6 billion in 2006.

Beijing's Legal Services Market

By the end of 2006, Beijing had 984 legal institutions and 13,511 certified public lawyers altogether. It was disclosed by the Beijing Municipal Judicial Bureau that in 2004, the annual business volume of law firms in Beijing had reached 150 thousand cases, with a total income of Rmb5 billion for China as a whole (including local, foreign and Hong Kong law firms) and a total tax payment of Rmb454 million. Foreign and Hong Kong law firms in Beijing brought in a total of Rmb 810 million. The income of Beijing law firms exceeded 1% of Beijing's GDP for the first time. By this time, legal business had already become an important industry in Beijing.

Table 2: Beijing Legal Business Income 2002-2006

Shanghai's Legal Service Market

As of February 2007, 750 law firms have been established in Shanghai and there were more than 8,000 certified public lawyers. Some of them are large-scale, full-service firms, such as AllBright Law Offices, Jin Mao Law Firm, Llinks Law Offices, Fangda Partners, Duan and Duan and City Development Law Firm. Many of these firms employ more than 100 lawyers. AllBright Law Offices, for example, has about 220 certified lawyers and 80 specialists and paralegals in between its Shanghai headquarters, Beijing branch, Shenzhen branch and Hangzhou branch. Some have handled deals of over Rmb100 million. Meanwhile, more and more foreign law firms are competing for the Shanghai market.

Table 3: Shanghai Legal Business Income 2002-2006

Guangdong's Legal Services Market

By 2006, there were more than 1,200 law firms and over 13,000 lawyers in Guangdong province. The annual business income of Guangdong law firms in 2005 was approximately Rmb2 billion, and accounted for 0.2% of Guangdong gross domestic product. The development of the legal services market in Guangdong province has happened at different speeds among cities and regions. For example, in 2005, the annual business income of Shenzhen law firms was Rmb1.37 billion, and the per capita income of Shenzhen lawyers was Rmb390,000. By contrast, there are some developing regions where people have difficulty making money from litigation. 70% of Guangdong lawyers work in big cities, particularly Guangzhou and Shenzhen. The development of the legal field is restricted by local economic conditions in smaller towns and counties, which have comparatively low economic development and a scarcity of legal practitioners.

International Law Firms Entering the Chinese Market

At the beginning of 2007, there were 169 overseas law firms and 72 Hong Kong law firms in China, which approximately took up 1.9% of all law firms in China. 5 The largest and most profitable international law firms have entered the legal service market of the Chinese mainland one after the other, mainly setting up in Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou and Shenzhen, and the circle of Chinese lawyers faces fierce competition with foreign lawyers.

THE IMPACT OF FOREIGN LAW FIRMS

Background

China began setting up office pilots for foreign and Hong Kong law firms in mainland China in 1992. The Department of Justice and the State Administration for Industry and Commerce published the Interim Provisions of the Ministry of Justice, the State Administration for Industry and Commerce on the Establishment of Offices within the territory of China by Foreign Law Firms. The Chinese market was officially opened to the outside world shortly afterwards.

In 2003, China abolished the "Three Restrictions" on the legal services market. This eliminated restrictions on the total number of offices established in China by foreign law firms, the limit on which cities foreign law firms could establish offices in, and the policy of only allowing one office per foreign law firm. Consequently, many well-known law firms established offices in both Beijing and Shanghai, accelerating the development of legal services in China.

The Chinese government continues to fulfill its commitments to WTO rules by further opening China's legal services market, which is a rather favorable policy for the legal services market. The political stability of China is also helpful for the business development of foreign law firms.

Advantages of Foreign Firms

China's rapid development has attracted the attention of the world. Foreign investment, mergers and acquisitions by multinational corporations, international trade, Chinese companies' overseas acquisitions and overseas IPOs involve complicated legal issues. International law firms have rich business experience in these fields.

The annual turnover of large international law firms can exceed

US$1 billion. They own branches all over the world, and employ thousands of excellent lawyers. Adequate funds and strong teams lay a solid foundation for these law firms.

The specialization, advanced management and branding of foreign law firms are advantages that Chinese law firms cannot match. These are all important competencies for success in the Chinese market, and have served them well.

Political Challenges

The opening of the legal services market is an inevitable requirement for China's economic globalization, and is an important reflection of trade liberalization. As a specialized professional service, though, it has been strictly regulated by domestic policies in every country. For example, many countries don't permit foreign lawyers to interpret their laws or write legal opinions on applying the laws of these countries. Most countries, however, are now trying to open up their legal services markets.

Cultural Challenges

For international law firms, different working cultures, legal environments and local customs pose challenges in many legal and business service fields. For example, when an overseas law firm provides legal services to a domestic enterprise, especially in the case of state-owned enterprises, it can be difficult to understand the business culture or working style of the client. The language barrier is another factor that cannot be neglected. Domestic law firms can more easily communicate with relevant authorities, such as the China Securities Regulatory Commission, the National Development and Reform Commission, or the Industry and Commerce Administration. Although some Chinese paralegals are employed by overseas law firms, and some associates graduating from overseas law schools are also Chinese nationals, most lawyers employed by international law firms are foreign lawyers with little or no knowledge of the Chinese language. Some legal research work can be done by Chinese paralegals, such as consulting the Ministry of Commerce on certain legal issues, but the language barrier does indeed restrict international law firms from expanding their business in China.

Human Resources

In terms of scale, localization and business scope, it is difficult to compare local and foreign law firms. For international firms, localization is the key to further development. To achieve localization, they must realize the importance of local business and recruit Chinese partners to help develop their business in China. Subject to Chinese regulations regarding foreign law firms in China 6, a Chinese certified lawyer can't be taken as a partner of a representative office of an international law firm in China and remain locally qualified. According to regulations, lawyers wishing to remain locally qualified shall not be taken as a staff of foreign law firm. Because of this, Chinese lawyers working in foreign law firms are not formal members of the foreign law firm. The style of cooperation is and must be loose. Most cooperation involves engaging an experienced Chinese lawyer as a senior legal consultant to an international law firm. For example, Robertson Stromberg Pedersen of Canada has established a strategic cooperative relationship with Winners Law Firm in Tianjin, and Xu Yongge became a legal consultant on Chinese law for Robertson Stromberg Pedersen. 7

Long-term Developments

Foreign law firms must face the strict scrutiny of the Department of Justice before they enter the Chinese market. China is one of the most dynamic markets in the world, and many foreign law firms are eager to step into it. Large quantities of applications leads to intense competition. For example, in 1993, the Chinese government announced that not more than 40 foreign law firms would be approved to start businesses in China. At that time, several hundred foreign law firms were applying to enter the Chinese market. Although at present the quantity of approved foreign law firms is more than 160 (excluding Hong Kong law firms), the number of foreign law firms hoping to enter the China legal services market is still increasing. 8

Some of the biggest clients of foreign law firms tend to be Chinese subsidiaries of well-known multinational enterprises. Expanding their list of clients to include state-owned enterprises, with intent to carry out mergers, acquisitions and direct or indirect investment overseas, is an important task for these firms. State-owned enterprises have always had complicated decision-making procedures, and foreign law firms need to adapt to these working styles. Costs are another important factor that these clients consider. As time passes, more and more Chinese enterprises will have the financial ability to pay for legal services from foreign law firms.

Other Factors

Foreign law firms also have difficulty with public relations in China, which is an area in which they cannot be compared with their Chinese counterparts. Their difficulty in understanding China's national conditions is also one of their disadvantages. Any economic organization will face the problem of localization when it operates internationally. When a foreign law firm enters China, it will need to acknowledge and adapt to Chinese trade customs and cultural norms.

The WTO granted an exception to its members on legal market access; that is, the legal services relating to national justice will exclude the entry of other foreign peers. This practice will avoid the participation of international law firms in the legal services relating to justice, such as litigation, notarization concerning justice and other legal services concerning justice. 9 In other words, foreign law firms are prohibited from attending litigation, interpreting Chinese laws or issuing legal opinions on Chinese legal affairs. This enormously restricts the business scope of international law firms in China.

MARKET STRATEGIES

Localization of Talent

Market competition is actually a competition of talent. Law firms cannot be strong without high-quality lawyers. In September 2002, Morrison & Foerster beat Coudert Brothers in the bidding for legal services for the Olympic Games 2008, and was appointed as the international legal counsel of the Beijing Organizing Committee for the Games of the XXIX Olympiad. This is closely related to the localization of talent strategy it adopted. Having hired Beijing partner Steven L. Toronto and Hong Kong partner Venantius Tan from Coudert Brothers, Morrison & Foerster greatly expanded its business in China. 10

There are now large numbers of Chinese lawyers who grew up in China and have studied abroad. Generally speaking, they tend to do their undergraduate education in China before going abroad, and receive LLM, JD or SJD degrees from overseas law schools. Some gain working experience in prominent law firms in the country in which they studied. They know and understand the politics, economy and legal environment of China, and are very proficient in foreign languages, making them very popular recruits for foreign law firms. Currently foreign law firms lure such talent chiefly by following means.

Brand - relying on brand advantage, foreign law firms can gain many multinational clients, which gives lawyers exposure to important international commercial transactions and cases that quickly raise their level of competency.

High salaries - foreign law firms employ graduates from mainland law schools with a salary of Rmb6,000-8,000 per month for the first year, and multiply their salary in the second or third year. Such lawyers with two to three years of professional work experience and a good level of English can receive an annual salary of Rmb200,000-350,000, while in most Chinese law firms, monthly salary is only Rmb1,000-3,000 for the first year. In some prominent domestic law firms however, monthly salaries can reach Rmb5,000-7,000 for the first year.

Training - some international law firms will scout for talent from Chinese law firms and law schools and give them adequate training. US law firms such as O'Melveny & Myers and Jones Day have established scholarships in colleges and universities in Shanghai and Beijing. The winning students not only can receive monetary rewards, but also gain access to tutorship by the firms' lawyers. Also, Chinese lawyers who have a certain number of years' work experience will have opportunities to accept training abroad.

Beneficial Cooperation between Chinese and Foreign Law Firms

Chinese and foreign law firms have tremendous potential for mutually cooperative relationships. Compared with Chinese law firms, foreign law firms have certain disadvantages, as mentioned previously. They do not have close relationships with Chinese local governments and Chinese enterprises. But they do have operating experience and institutional support in transnational financing, which helps with mergers & acquisitions and international trade. Already, many leading domestic law firms such as Jun He Law Offices, King & Wood, Zhong Lun Law Firm, Llinks Law Offices, AllBright Law Offices and others have had successful cooperative relationships with foreign law firms.

Foreign and Chinese law firms usually cooperate in large M&A deals and transnational affairs. In such cases, foreign law firms take charge of reviewing whether or not the transaction complies with international standards, while Chinese law firms review the transaction in terms of compliance with Chinese laws and regulations. Foreign law firms can also offer general consultations about China to foreign investors. Chinese law firms also provide their clients with consultation services on Chinese legal affairs in relation to international business. For example, when ACE group held shares of Huatai Insurance in 2002, O'Melveny & Myers invited King & Wood's Shanghai office as its partner to deal with the case. In fields such as anti-dumping and transnational dealings, where foreign law firms have an obvious advantage, Chinese law firms will often seek to cooperate with their foreign counterparts.

Strategies for Different Market Segments

As foreign investment continues to pour into the Chinese market, foreign law firms have entered the Chinese legal services market to provide high-end, non-litigation services related to foreign capital. The next step is naturally to serve both Chinese and international enterprises, competing for high-end clients with local firms.

Foreign law firms have a broad service scope, including investment, finance & insurance, mergers & acquisitions, overseas listings, asset securitization, foreign litigation & arbitration, office establishment, international trade, technology transfer, real estate, and intellectual property. Foreign law firms can choose a market segment as a way to enter the Chinese market. Compared with foreign law firms, local law firms also can supply such legal services other than litigation. As China has a shorter history of legal professional development, the practice experience of local law firms is not as great as that of foreign law firms, especially in the fields of foreign direct investment, M&A, asset securitization, and legal affairs related to the World Trade Organization.

MARKET TRENDS FOR LEGAL SERVICES IN CHINA

In the next two to three years, large international law firms will retain footholds in the high-end market, providing legal services for international project cooperation, investment and financing, general corporate work, mergers and acquisitions, and overseas listings. Other well-known international law firms that have not yet entered the Chinese market will be attracted by the growing economy to compete for middle and high-end markets.

Local Chinese law firms will continue to focus on general legal services related to solving various disputes for the local population, and for Chinese companies and people involved in foreign affairs. Litigation cases for smaller claims, handling mortgage procedures in purchasing homes, and legal consultations for small and medium enterprises will remain the territory of local firms, while some will penetrate the high-end market through cooperation with large international firms.

As shown in the graph opposite, according to the status of the development of the Chinese legal services market and the operational conditions of the Chinese economy over the past few years, it is predicted that this market will grow at a compound annual growth rate of 25.6% from 2006 to 2010, and reach an income level of over

US$6 billion by 2010.

Globalization and the liberalization of legal services is the trend for development in the legal services industry. In 2007, China will open its legal services market more deeply and broadly. 11 The legal services market in China will develop at a large scale and to a high degree, bringing more opportunities for both Chinese and foreign law firms.

Endnotes

1 Xiaowei Chen is a partner of Beijing Chang An Law Firm, with expertise in securitization, international trade and foreign investment in China. Chen obtained his LL.M. degree from Beijing University in 1996. Prior to joining Chang An, he was a professor at the Central University of Finance and Economics Law School. Chen has published various works in the field of corporate law, contract law, competition law and product quality law. He can be contacted at ryan9640@126.com. His thanks go to Zhang Kunyi and Zhan Hui for their intellect and efforts given to the essay.

2 Charlie Xiaolin Wang is the managing partner of Wang & Nance LLP, a boutique law firm in Washington, DC specializing in China-related legal matters. Before establishing his own law firm, Wang served three major US law firms. He was a partner of a preeminent Wall Street law firm and its chief representative in Beijing. Wang also teaches at Beijing University Law School and Tsinghua University Law School. He frequently publishes in the field of securitization and international trade law. He can be contacted at c.wang@ueico.net.

3 Aijun Liu, "Overseas Law Firms Enlarge in China, Lawyers in Mainland and Hong Kong Unite to Counterbalance", published in Legal Daily dated January 22 2007.

4 "Top Ten Issues in Lawyer Profession", China Economic Express Weekly 2003 No.38

5 Aijun Liu, "Overseas Law Firms Enlarge in China, Lawyers in Mainland and Hong Kong Unite to Counterbalance", published in Legal Daily dated January 22 2007

6 Article 16 of the Regulations on the Administration of Foreign Law Firms' Representative Offices in China: "A representative office shall not employ Chinese practicing lawyers".

7 Xiaofan Yang, First Tianjin Lawyer to Join Canadian Law Firm, February 2 2007

8 Jianwei Fang, "On Opening-up of Legal Service Industry after China Enters WTO", Administration and Law 2004 No.3

9 Article 15 of the Regulations on the Administration of Foreign Law Firms' Representative Offices in China: "A representative office and its representatives may only be engaged in the following activities that do not involve the affairs on Chinese law: (1) to provide the parties concerned with consultation in respect of the laws of the country where the lawyers in this foreign law firm are permitted to practice as lawyers, as well as consultation related to international treaties and international practices; (2) to be entrusted by the parties or Chinese law firms to handle legal affairs in the country where the lawyers in this foreign law firm are permitted to practice as lawyers; (3) to represent foreign parties to entrust Chinese law firms to handle the affairs on Chinese law; (4) to keep long-term contractual entrustment relationship with Chinese law firms to handle legal affairs; (5) to provide information on the influences to Chinese legal environment."

10 Yun Gao, "Analysis on Current Situation and Prospect of Foreign Law Firms in China", September 16 2003

11 When China entered the WTO, it promised a timetable for opening the service markets. The transitional period expired at the end of 2006, and many industries were fully opened. Global Agreement on Trade in Services also requests its members to open their domestic legal services markets gradually, to approbate foreign lawyer certificate, and to permit foreign lawyers to practice in the field of the host country's law after reasonable and fair examination.

 

 

New Regulations for Law Firms' Securities Practice: Loosening Access, Strengthening Accountability China Law & PracticeLondon: May 2007. pg. 1
Abstract (Summary)

In the field of securities law, legal practitioners have, until recently, been subject to a qualification approval system, which required approval from regulatory authorities. With the new Measures issued by the CSRC and the Ministry of Justice, this passive system of regulation has been eliminated, in favour of giving regulatory authorities greater powers of discretion in validating legal opinions in terms of authenticity, accuracy and integrity. This article explains the new rules, and how securities lawyers can ensure compliance.

Full Text (1353  words)
Copyright Euromoney Institutional Investor PLC May 2007

 

In the field of securities law, legal practitioners have, until recently, been subject to a qualification approval system, which required approval from regulatory authorities. With the new Measures issued by the CSRC and the Ministry of Justice, this passive system of regulation has been eliminated, in favour of giving regulatory authorities greater powers of discretion in validating legal opinions in terms of authenticity, accuracy and integrity. Tiejun Shi and Shiwei Zhang explain the new rules, and how securities lawyers can ensure compliance.

By Tiejun Shi and Shiwei Zhang, Jun He Law Offices ( Beijing )

John Du, Jun He Law Offices ( New York )

Among the many recent developments in China's regulation of the securities industry is one that directly affects law firms - the Measures for the Administration of the Provision of Securities Legal Services by Law Firms (the Measures), jointly issued by the China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) and the Ministry of Justice of the PRC on March 9 2007, effective May 1 2007. These Measures change the previous qualification-based regulatory scheme for securities lawyers to a conduct-based regulatory mechanism of regulating the practice of securities law.

Under the previous qualification-based regulatory scheme, a lawyer was not allowed to practice securities law unless he or she had obtained prior approval from the regulatory authorities. The current Measures have abolished the prior approval on qualification, but focus on the process, content and quality of the legal services provided by securities lawyers. As a securities-related transaction is often a continually evolving process, the regulatory authorities are required to provide timely and dynamic regulation of legal service activities. The Measures have largely reflected the philosophical transition of the regulatory authorities from passive and static regulation to proactive and dynamic regulation.

Scope of Securities Legal Services

The Measures comprehensively and systematically define, for the first time, the scope of securities legal services. According to the Measures, "Securities Legal Service" refers to the legal services of (i) the formulation and issuance of written legal opinions and (ii) the preparation of other documents provided by law firms engaged by their clients with respect to securities transactions. According to the Measures, a law firm needs to issue legal opinions with respect to the following matters:

(1) initial public offerings and listings of shares;

(2) the issuance and listing of securities by listed companies;

(3) the acquisition or significant restructuring of listed companies, and the repurchase by listed companies of their outstanding shares;

(4) the equity incentive plans carried out by listed companies;

(5) the holding of a shareholders meeting by listed companies;

(6) domestic enterprises directly or indirectly issuing securities and/or listing overseas;

(7) the establishment, modification, dissolution or termination of securities companies, securities investment fund management companies, and their branches;

(8) raising of securities investment funds, and establishment of integrated asset management plans of securities companies;

(9) issuance and listing of securities derivatives; and

(10) other matters prescribed by the CSRC.

Rules for Securities Legal Practice

The Measures set forth rules for the exercise of the examination and verification of relevant documents by securities lawyers in providing securities legal services. The Measures also require law firms to exercise due diligence in examining and verifying the documents, based on which legal opinions will be issued when providing securities legal services, including their authenticity, accuracy and integrity. Before conducting the examination and verification, a law firm shall formulate an examination and verification plan to definitively list the items requiring examination and verification, adjusted to the development of the provision of legal services. A law firm may issue legal opinions based on the documents directly obtained from state organs, organizations managing public affairs, accounting firms, asset appraisal institutions, credit rating institutions and notarization institutions. However, the documents that are not directly obtained from pubic organizations may not serve as a basis for issuing legal opinions until they are found to be true upon examination and verification. The Measures expressly state that a lawyer shall, when issuing legal opinions, perform the obligation of special and heightened care of a legal professional with regard to legal issues, and shall perform the obligation of general care of a common person with regard to other business matters. The documents must not contain any false and misleading statements or make any major omissions. These provisions set forth a clear standard of care for lawyers practicing securities law.

Required Content and Format for Legal OpinionS

"Legal Opinion" is defined in the Measures as the explicitly conclusive opinions issued by law firms about the legality of the matters entrusted by their clients and the basis for clients, investors, CSRC and its local offices to confirm whether such matters are lawful or not. Legal opinions are the key work products of law firms in providing securities-related legal services. Legal opinions can only be issued in accordance with the applicable laws, administrative regulations and provisions, after the lawyers have examined and verified the authenticity, accuracy and integrity of the contents in the documents and materials provided by their clients with respect to the subject matter. According to the Measures, a written legal opinion is required to cite the relevant materials, facts, specific examination and verification results, related state provisions and conclusive opinions with respect to the subject matters entrusted to them by their clients, and no ambiguous expressions such as "substantially complying with" or "having not discovered" may occur in legal opinions. If any of the following are the case, the law firm involved shall specify as such in its legal opinion, and sufficiently disclose its impact on the relevant matters and the risks that may occur:

(1) all or part of the matters entrusted by the client are in violation of the provisions of the CSRC;

(2) the facts and the materials obtained from the client are unclear and insufficient and cannot comprehensively reflect the situation of the client;

(3) the examination and verification of documents provided by the client are prevented by objective conditions, and as a result, it is impossible for the law firm to obtain necessary evidence;

(4) the law firm has requested its client to remedy incompliance and to supplement supporting documents, but the client has failed to do so;

(5) the law firm has diligently and dutifully performed its obligations but still cannot make a definitive judgement about all or part of the subject matter; and

(6) other circumstances that the law firm thinks should be explained.

If a law firm cannot issue such a legal opinion, it must in the legal opinion specify the reasons for not being able to do so, and shall sufficiently disclose the effect and risk of the relevant matters. These provisions in the Measures set forth clear rules for law firms issuing legal opinions on securities-related business, for the securities market participants to more effectively and sufficiently disclose information.

Supervision and Administration

Despite the elimination of the qualification approval system for securities lawyers, the Measures have granted the regulatory authorities sweeping authority to regulate the services provided and thus hold securities lawyers accountable. Based on the Measures, if the regulatory authorities have any doubt about the authenticity, accuracy and integrity of a legal opinion or other document issued by a law firm, they may demand the law firm to provide explanations and supplement supporting documents, or even consult its working papers. If a law firm fails to issue legal opinions in accordance with the provisions in the Measures, the regulatory authorities may order it to remedy such incompliance, conduct regulatory interviews with the law firm, or issue a warning letter. If the law firm refuses or does not show up at the requested interview with the regulatory authorities, or fails to remedy its incompliance as required by the regulatory authorities, the regulatory authorities may order the law firm to carry out rectification within a specified time limit. Regulatory bodies now have the authority to refuse to accept the legal opinions and other legal documents issued by any law firm, subject to investigation or rectification. These provisions may force law firms to strengthen their internal management and to improve the quality of the legal documents they issue.