When arbitration is unavailable or inappropriate — navigating China's court system with precision, from filing through enforcement.
While international arbitration is the preferred mechanism for most cross-border commercial disputes involving Chinese parties, there are circumstances where litigation before Chinese courts is not merely an option but a necessity.
Litigation in Chinese courts is appropriate — and sometimes unavoidable — in several common scenarios: (a) where no arbitration agreement exists between the parties; (b) where the dispute involves matters that are non-arbitrable under Chinese law (e.g., certain administrative disputes, validity of registered IP rights, antitrust claims); (c) where urgent interim relief is needed and only a court can grant the specific remedy sought; (d) where the counterparty has assets only in China and enforcement of a foreign judgment or award would be procedurally onerous; or (e) where parties have expressly agreed to Chinese court jurisdiction in a valid choice-of-court clause.
The Chinese court system has undergone significant modernization over the past decade. Specialized intellectual property courts, international commercial courts, and online courts have been established. Judicial transparency has improved through the mandatory online publication of judgments (with limited exceptions). The quality of judicial reasoning in commercial cases, particularly at the Intermediate and Higher People's Court level, has risen markedly. For foreign parties, the system is navigable — and winnable — with experienced counsel who understand both the procedural rules and the substantive law.
Key Insight: The biggest mistake foreign parties make is assuming Chinese courts are uniformly hostile to foreign litigants. In practice, outcomes in Chinese commercial litigation correlate far more strongly with the quality of evidence and legal argument than with the nationality of the parties. The real challenge is procedural — strict document requirements, tight deadlines, and a system that operates very differently from common-law litigation. Being procedurally prepared is half the battle.
China operates a four-tier court system under the Organic Law of the People's Courts. Understanding jurisdictional tiers is essential — it determines where you file, the quality of adjudication you can expect, and the appellate path.
The lowest tier — over 3,000 courts at the county/district level. These courts handle the majority of first-instance civil and commercial cases, including most contract disputes, employment cases, and smaller IP matters, unless the amount in dispute or nature of the case triggers a higher court's jurisdiction. Basic courts also include specialized tribunals for specific case types. Foreign-related cases are generally NOT heard at this level.
Approximately 400 Intermediate People's Courts (IPCs) at the prefecture level. IPCs have first-instance jurisdiction over foreign-related civil and commercial cases, cases with a disputed amount exceeding the threshold for basic courts (varies by province, typically RMB 100-500 million for non-foreign cases), IP disputes above certain thresholds, and recognition/enforcement of foreign judgments and arbitral awards. IPCs are the workhorse courts for cross-border commercial litigation. The quality of adjudication at this level is generally good, with judges often holding advanced law degrees.
One per province-level jurisdiction (31 total). Higher People's Courts (HPCs) handle first-instance cases with significant amounts in dispute (thresholds vary by province, typically RMB 500 million to 5 billion depending on the province) or cases with major impact within the province. Their primary workload, however, is appellate review of IPC decisions. HPCs also supervise lower courts within their jurisdiction and issue guiding opinions on provincial legal practice.
The SPC in Beijing is the apex court. It hears first-instance cases of national significance (rare in commercial matters), exercises appellate review over HPC decisions, and — critically — conducts retrial (再审) review of final judgments from lower courts. The SPC issues judicial interpretations (司法解释) that effectively function as supplemental legislation, guiding lower courts on statutory interpretation. Its guiding cases (指导性案例) have de facto precedential value, though China is not formally a common-law jurisdiction.
Established in 2018, the CICC (最高人民法院国际商事法庭) is a specialized division of the SPC handling international commercial disputes. It features a "one-stop" platform integrating litigation, arbitration, and mediation. The CICC has an International Commercial Expert Committee comprising experts from multiple jurisdictions who can mediate or provide advisory opinions on foreign law. Parties can agree to CICC jurisdiction in contracts with a "foreign element," and the CICC applies a case acceptance mechanism with higher amount-in-dispute thresholds (typically RMB 300 million or above, or cases with significant impact).
Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, and Hainan have dedicated IP Courts with exclusive jurisdiction over certain categories of intellectual property cases. The Beijing IP Court has exclusive first-instance jurisdiction over appeals against administrative decisions of the CNIPA (trademark and patent office). These courts feature technically trained judges, some with science and engineering backgrounds. Their decisions are widely followed and represent the cutting edge of Chinese IP jurisprudence. In 2023, the SPC further established specialized IP tribunals in additional cities.
Hangzhou, Beijing, and Guangzhou Internet Courts handle online disputes including e-commerce, online copyright, internet finance, and domain name disputes. They operate fully online — filing, evidence submission, hearings, and judgment delivery all occur through digital platforms. For foreign e-commerce businesses and technology companies with disputes involving online platforms in China, these courts offer efficient and technologically sophisticated adjudication.
The PRC Civil Procedure Law (CPL, amended 2023) establishes a comprehensive framework for determining which court has jurisdiction over a civil or commercial dispute. Understanding these rules is critical — filing in the wrong court leads to dismissal or transfer, wasting time and costs.
The default rule is that the defendant's domicile (住所地) court has jurisdiction. For legal persons, domicile is the place of its principal business office. The CPL also provides special territorial jurisdiction rules: contract disputes may be brought where the contract is performed (合同履行地); tort claims where the tortious act occurred or the harm resulted (侵权行为地); and property disputes where the property is located (标的物所在地). For foreign-related cases involving defendants with no domicile in China, Chinese courts may assert jurisdiction if the contract is performed or signed in China, the defendant has seizable property in China, or the tort occurred in China.
The amount in dispute (诉讼标的额) is the primary determinant of which tier of court has first-instance jurisdiction. The SPC periodically adjusts the monetary thresholds. As a general guide (thresholds vary by province): cases below approximately RMB 100-500 million are heard by Basic Courts (non-foreign); foreign-related cases and cases above provincial thresholds go to IPCs; cases above RMB 500 million to 5 billion (depending on province) go to HPCs. Large developed provinces (Guangdong, Jiangsu, Zhejiang) have higher thresholds than less developed regions.
Certain matters are subject to exclusive Chinese court jurisdiction regardless of any choice-of-court agreement. These include: disputes over real property located in China (governed by the courts at the property's location); disputes arising from port operations (governed by the maritime court at the port's location); and disputes over inheritance involving real property in China. Most importantly for foreign JV partners — disputes concerning the validity, dissolution, or liquidation of Sino-foreign equity joint ventures and wholly foreign-owned enterprises (WFOEs) established under Chinese law are subject to exclusive Chinese court jurisdiction.
Parties to a foreign-related contract may agree in writing to submit their disputes to a Chinese court with an actual connection to the dispute (the place of the defendant's domicile, the plaintiff's domicile, contract performance, contract signing, or the location of the subject matter). The choice must be exclusive — non-exclusive or floating jurisdiction clauses may be invalidated by Chinese courts. The 2023 CPL amendments clarified that parties to foreign-related cases may choose a Chinese court even without an "actual connection" if the dispute has no other connection to China and the choice is not contrary to exclusive jurisdiction rules or public policy — a significant liberalization.
Chinese civil litigation follows a structured procedural sequence. Understanding each phase and its deadlines is essential for effective case management. China operates a two-instance system (两审终审制): a case is heard at first instance and, if appealed, at second instance. The second-instance judgment is final and binding.
The plaintiff files a Statement of Claim (起诉状) with the competent court, together with: the power of attorney (授权委托书) — which must be notarized and legalized for foreign parties; the plaintiff's certificate of incorporation or equivalent — also notarized/legalized; evidence in support; and identification documents. The court must decide within 7 days whether to accept the case. The case acceptance registration system (立案登记制), introduced in 2015, requires courts to accept cases that meet formal requirements, significantly reducing the previous practice of informal case rejection. Upon acceptance, the court serves the complaint on the defendant. Foreign defendants served outside China are given 30 days to file a defense (extendable).
After pleadings are closed, the court schedules an evidence exchange session (举证质证). Each party submits its documentary evidence, witness lists, and any expert reports or judicial appraisal applications. The opposing party is given the opportunity to examine and challenge the authenticity, relevance, and legality of the evidence (质证). The court may admit or exclude evidence based on these challenges. The court also fixes the deadline for evidence submission (举证期限); evidence submitted late without good cause may be excluded. Chinese courts place overwhelming weight on documentary evidence — original documents, seals, and signatures are scrutinized carefully.
The hearing is conducted by a panel of judges (three for first-instance cases at the IPC level and above, though a single judge may hear simple cases) or by a collegiate bench with people's assessors (人民陪审员) in certain cases. The hearing follows a structured sequence: opening statements, evidence presentation and cross-examination, examination of witnesses, and closing arguments. Chinese judges are active inquisitors — they intervene frequently with questions, may direct parties to address specific issues, and often act as mediators between the parties. The court may hold multiple hearings before concluding the trial. Courtroom interpretation is arranged by the court for non-Chinese-speaking parties, but parties may bring their own interpreters.
The court issues a written judgment (判决书) stating the facts found, the legal basis for the decision, and the disposition. Judgments are typically issued within 6 months of case acceptance for first-instance cases (extendable with the SPC's approval). Either party may appeal to the next-higher court within 15 days of service of the judgment (30 days for foreign parties without domicile in China). The appellate court reviews both facts and law, and may affirm, modify, or remand the case. The appellate court should issue its judgment within 3 months of case acceptance (extendable). The second-instance judgment is final and immediately binding.
Foreign Party Considerations: All documents originating outside China must be notarized and legalized (or apostilled for Hague Apostille Convention member states). Powers of attorney must follow strict formalities. Court deadlines are shorter than in many Western jurisdictions — 15 days to appeal a first-instance judgment is a tight timeline requiring swift decision-making. Translation of all non-Chinese documents into Chinese is required (by a qualified translator). We handle all these procedural requirements for our clients, ensuring no filing is rejected on formal grounds.
Evidence rules in Chinese civil litigation differ markedly from common-law systems. Understanding these differences is critical to case preparation and success.
Documentary evidence is the king of evidence in Chinese courts. Original documents bearing official seals (公章) carry particular weight. Contracts, correspondence, financial records, delivery receipts, inspection certificates, and WeChat message logs are the primary categories. Foreign documents must be translated into Chinese by a qualified translator. The court may order a party to produce specific documents in its possession. Electronic documents are admissible if their authenticity can be established, though the evidentiary rules for electronic evidence continue to evolve.
Witness testimony plays a more limited role in Chinese civil litigation than in common-law systems. Witnesses are examined primarily by the judge, not by counsel (there is no formal cross-examination in the common-law sense). Witnesses must generally appear in person; written witness statements without in-person testimony carry limited weight. Witnesses can be compelled to appear, though enforcement is inconsistent. Party officials and employees may testify, but their testimony is viewed with caution given the obvious interest. Expert witnesses (专家辅助人) may be called by parties to assist the court in understanding technical matters.
Unlike party-appointed experts in common-law systems, Chinese courts primarily rely on court-appointed judicial appraisers (鉴定人) from court-approved lists. Parties may jointly select an appraiser; failing agreement, the court appoints one. Judicial appraisal covers forensic document examination (signature and seal authenticity), handwriting analysis, product quality testing, accounting/audit, and IP technical assessment. The appraisal report carries substantial weight, though it is not binding on the court. Parties may challenge the appraiser's qualifications or methodology, and may request a supplementary or new appraisal. Party-commissioned expert reports (单方委托鉴定) are admissible but generally receive less weight.
The PRC Civil Procedure Law provides three main types of interim relief, collectively referred to as "preservation" (保全). These are powerful tools for preventing asset dissipation, evidence destruction, and ongoing harm during the pendency of litigation. Strategic deployment of preservation measures — particularly before the counterparty is notified of the lawsuit — can fundamentally alter the balance of power in the dispute.
The court may freeze bank accounts, seize property, attach receivables, restrict equity transfers, or prohibit disposal of specific assets upon the plaintiff's application and provision of security (typically 30% of the amount sought to be preserved, though this is at the court's discretion). An application can be made before filing the lawsuit (诉前财产保全) — in which case the plaintiff must file the lawsuit within 30 days — or after filing (诉中财产保全). Pre-filing preservation is particularly effective because the counterparty has no warning. The court must rule on a pre-filing application within 48 hours. Foreign applicants may need to provide additional security, though this is not a statutory requirement. The property preserved cannot exceed the amount of the claim or the value of the disputed subject matter.
Where evidence may be lost, destroyed, or become difficult to obtain later, a party may apply to the court for preservation of that evidence. This can include seizure of documents, preservation of electronic data, inspection of premises, or recording of witness testimony. The court may conduct the preservation itself or order the party in possession to preserve the evidence. In IP cases, evidence preservation is often combined with property preservation — seizing infringing products as both evidence and assets.
Conduct preservation — the functional equivalent of an injunction in common-law systems — was formally introduced into the CPL in 2012. The court may order a party to do or refrain from doing a specific act to prevent irreparable harm. Common applications include: restraining a party from transferring disputed IP, restraining a party from operating a competing business during the litigation, ordering cessation of allegedly infringing activity, and restraining a party from disposing of key assets. The standard is that the applicant's legitimate rights and interests would suffer irreparable harm absent the order. Courts are generally cautious in granting conduct preservation, particularly mandatory (as opposed to prohibitory) relief.
Under the two-instance system, the second-instance judgment is final. However, the CPL provides extraordinary remedies — retrial and prosecutorial protest — that allow final judgments to be reopened in limited circumstances. These are not routine appeals; they are exceptional remedies with strict gatekeeping.
A party may apply for retrial within 6 months of the final judgment becoming effective. The application is filed with the next-higher court (typically the HPC for an IPC final judgment, or the SPC for an HPC final judgment). The court must examine the application within 3 months and decide whether to accept it. Accepted retrials suspend enforcement of the original judgment. The grounds for retrial are statutory and include: (a) material new evidence sufficient to overturn the original judgment; (b) the primary evidence in the original judgment was insufficient; (c) the original judgment applied the law incorrectly; (d) violation of statutory procedure that may have affected the outcome; (e) judicial corruption; or (f) the original judgment exceeds the scope of the claims. The retrial rate is low — estimated at well under 5% in commercial cases.
The People's Procuratorate (the Chinese procuratorial authority) may lodge a protest (抗诉) against a final civil judgment with the court at the same level, which must then reopen the case. A party may petition the Procuratorate to exercise this power within 2 years of the judgment becoming effective. The Procuratorate will investigate and may issue a procuratorial recommendation (检察建议) or a formal protest. The grounds parallel those for retrial. In practice, prosecutorial protest is more likely to succeed than a direct retrial application, as the Procuratorate's involvement signals systemic concerns with the original judgment. This remedy is used sparingly but can be effective in cases involving clear legal error or procedural irregularity.
A Chinese court judgment is only as valuable as your ability to collect on it. Enforcement — not judgment — is where many cases are won or lost.
Enforcement of domestic judgments is handled by the enforcement division (执行局) of the court that rendered the first-instance judgment or a court at the location of the debtor's property. The judgment creditor must apply for enforcement within 2 years of the judgment becoming final. The enforcement court has broad powers: to freeze and seize bank accounts, to seal and auction real property, to garnish wages and accounts receivable, to restrict the debtor's ability to travel (限制出境), to impose consumption restrictions, and to publish the debtor's information on the "dishonest persons" list (失信被执行人名单).
The Supreme People's Court maintains a public database of judgment debtors who have the capacity to pay but refuse to do so. Listing on this database triggers cascading consequences: prohibition from purchasing air and high-speed rail tickets, prohibition from hotel stays above a certain star rating, restriction on children's enrollment in private schools, disqualification from bidding on government contracts, credit restrictions with banks, and public reputational damage. This mechanism has proven remarkably effective — many debtors pay after being listed because the lifestyle restrictions are immediate and severe. We routinely use the threat of listing as a settlement lever during enforcement negotiations.
Despite these powers, enforcement in China can be challenging. Debtors may have transferred assets to relatives or shell companies before the judgment, or the primary enforcement court may be in a jurisdiction with a weaker enforcement apparatus. Our pre-litigation strategy always includes enforcement mapping — identifying where the counterparty's assets are located and assessing the enforceability of a judgment from the likely court of adjudication.
Recognition and enforcement of foreign court judgments in China has historically been difficult, but the landscape is evolving rapidly. China has no comprehensive statute on recognition of foreign judgments; instead, the legal basis derives from: (a) bilateral judicial assistance treaties; (b) the principle of reciprocity (互惠原则); and (c) relevant SPC judicial interpretations and policies.
China has signed bilateral judicial assistance treaties with over 35 countries that include provisions for mutual recognition and enforcement of civil and commercial judgments. Key treaty partners include: France, Italy, Spain, Russia, Brazil, United Arab Emirates, and South Korea. Notably, China does NOT have such treaties with the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany (though the Civil Judgment Convention provides a separate path), Japan, or Canada. In the absence of a bilateral treaty, parties must rely on the reciprocity principle.
The reciprocity principle has been the primary basis for recognizing foreign judgments in the absence of treaties. The traditional Chinese approach required proof that the foreign court had previously recognized and enforced a Chinese judgment — a circular requirement that proved insurmountable in many cases. However, the 2017 Nanning Declaration (南宁声明), adopted by the 2nd China-ASEAN Justice Forum, signaled a shift toward "presumptive reciprocity" — Chinese courts should presume reciprocity exists unless the foreign jurisdiction has previously refused to recognize a Chinese judgment. The 2023 CPL amendments codified this more liberal approach. The SPC has also indicated that foreign judgments from jurisdictions that have no record of refusing Chinese judgments may be recognized on reciprocity grounds, even absent a prior positive recognition.
Recent landmark cases demonstrate the evolution: in 2017, the Wuhan IPC recognized a U.S. District Court judgment (California) for the first time on reciprocity grounds (Liu Li v. Tao Li). In 2019, the Shanghai No. 1 IPC recognized a Singaporean judgment. In 2020, the Beijing No. 4 IPC recognized a Korean judgment. In 2021, the SPC for the first time recognized a German judgment on reciprocity grounds. In 2022, the Shanghai Maritime Court recognized an English judgment. These decisions indicate a clear trend toward greater openness to foreign judgment recognition, particularly from major trading partners.
The procedure: the applicant files a petition with the competent IPC at the location of the debtor's domicile or principal place of business, or where the debtor's property is located, accompanied by the authenticated foreign judgment, proof of proper service on the defendant, the original or certified copy of the foreign judgment, a Chinese translation, and proof that the judgment is final and binding under the law of the rendering state. The court examines the application for compliance with the applicable treaty, the reciprocity principle, and the public policy exception. The application must be filed within 2 years of the foreign judgment becoming final.
The CICC (最高人民法院国际商事法庭) represents China's most ambitious institutional reform for international commercial dispute resolution. Established in June 2018 with two chambers (in Shenzhen and Xi'an), the CICC offers a "one-stop" platform (一站式平台) that integrates litigation, arbitration, and mediation — allowing parties to transition seamlessly between these modes without leaving the institutional framework.
Key features: (a) the CICC hears cases where the amount in dispute exceeds RMB 300 million, the parties have chosen CICC jurisdiction in writing, or the case has national significance; (b) appeals from CICC first-instance decisions go directly to the SPC, making the CICC effectively a one-instance court with direct SPC oversight; (c) the International Commercial Expert Committee, composed of distinguished jurists from China and abroad, may mediate disputes and provide advisory opinions on foreign law; (d) parties may jointly designate a CICC-recognized arbitral institution (currently CIETAC, HKIAC, SIAC, BAC, SHIAC, SCIA) for arbitration within the one-stop framework, and the CICC will support interim measures and enforcement; (e) the CICC operates in both Chinese and English, accepts evidence in foreign languages (with translations), and permits foreign lawyers to appear (with limitations) as representatives. The CICC has issued several landmark decisions and is gradually gaining traction as a forum for high-value Belt and Road disputes.
| Item | Chinese Court Litigation | International Arbitration (for comparison) |
|---|---|---|
| Court/Institutional Fees | Ad valorem court fees based on claim amount; relatively low. Eg., approximately RMB 46,800 for a RMB 10M claim. Fees are capped. Partial refund if settled/mediated. | CIETAC: ad valorem, similar order of magnitude for smaller claims; ICC: significantly higher for large claims; HKIAC/SIAC: moderate, between CIETAC and ICC. |
| Typical Duration (First Instance) | 6 months statutory limit (extendable); in practice, 6-12 months at IPC level. | 12-18 months from filing to final award (CIETAC default: 6 months from tribunal constitution). |
| Appeal Duration | 3 months statutory limit (extendable); in practice, 3-6 months. Add retrial period if applicable. | No appeal on merits; award may be challenged on procedural grounds only (set-aside at seat). |
| Cost Recovery | Court fees allocated based on outcome; successful party's legal fees generally not recoverable (limited exceptions). | Tribunal has broad discretion; costs-follow-event common; partial recovery of legal fees increasingly awarded. |
| Transparency | Judgments published online (with limited exceptions); public hearings. | Confidential; awards generally not published. |
| Appeal/Challenge Risk | Two-instance system plus retrial; finality may be delayed. | Award is final and binding; limited grounds for set-aside at seat. |
| Cross-Border Enforceability | Limited to countries with bilateral treaties or reciprocity; uncertain in many key jurisdictions. | Enforceable in 160+ New York Convention states; strong enforcement track record. |
Choose Chinese litigation when: (a) there is no arbitration agreement; (b) the counterparty's assets are concentrated in China and you need rapid enforcement against those domestic assets; (c) cost is a primary concern and the claim amount is moderate; (d) you are prepared for a public proceeding and the two-instance system timeline. Choose international arbitration when: (a) cross-border enforceability is critical; (b) confidentiality is important; (c) you have bargaining power to negotiate a favorable arbitration clause; (d) you need party-appointed decision-makers with industry-specific expertise; (e) you seek finality without multi-level appeals.
We represent foreign clients in Chinese courts from pre-filing strategy through final enforcement. Our litigation practice covers the full spectrum of commercial disputes: contract, joint venture, intellectual property, employment, maritime, and enforcement proceedings. We have appeared before Intermediate and Higher People's Courts across multiple provinces, as well as specialized IP courts and maritime courts.
Our litigation strategy is built on three pillars: meticulous procedural preparation — ensuring that all filings, notarizations, and evidence submissions meet Chinese court requirements; evidentiary rigor — building the documentary record that Chinese judges rely on, with proper authentication and translation of all materials; and strategic deployment of interim measures — using property and evidence preservation to protect our clients' interests from day one. We appear with our clients in court, manage the interpretation process, and provide real-time explanations of proceedings and rulings. After judgment, we lead enforcement — investigating assets, applying for compulsory enforcement measures, and pursuing the social credit mechanisms that pressure debtors to pay.
Yes. Foreign companies and individuals have the right to bring civil lawsuits before Chinese courts. The PRC Civil Procedure Law provides that foreign nationals and enterprises have equal litigation rights with Chinese nationals and enterprises, subject to reciprocity. Foreign-related cases (涉外案件) are heard by Intermediate People's Courts or above. The foreign plaintiff must meet the same procedural requirements — proper notarization/legalization of corporate documents and powers of attorney, Chinese translations of all foreign-language materials, and compliance with Chinese court deadlines. There is no requirement to post special security or bond solely because the plaintiff is foreign (though property preservation applications require security regardless of nationality).
For a foreign-related commercial case at the IPC level: first-instance judgment typically within 6-12 months of case acceptance, with a statutory limit of 6 months (extendable with approval). If appealed, the appellate judgment typically comes within 3-6 months, with a statutory limit of 3 months. The total timeline from filing to a final, binding judgment is generally 12-18 months. However, complex cases involving multiple parties, extensive evidence, foreign law issues, or judicial appraisal can take significantly longer — 24-36 months is not unusual for large commercial cases. Cases in specialized courts (IP, maritime) may move faster due to judicial specialization. The CICC aims for faster timelines but has limited track record.
It depends on whether your home country has a bilateral judicial assistance treaty with China or whether Chinese courts have previously found reciprocity with your jurisdiction. If your country has a treaty with China (e.g., France, Italy, Russia, UAE, South Korea), the path is relatively straightforward — the Chinese court will review the foreign judgment under the treaty's standards and, if satisfied, issue a ruling recognizing and permitting enforcement. If there is no treaty (e.g., US, UK, Germany, Japan), you must rely on the reciprocity principle. The 2023 CPL amendments and the Nanning Declaration have liberalized the reciprocity analysis, but the process remains uncertain. The SPC's recent decisions recognizing judgments from the US, Germany, Korea, and Singapore are encouraging, but each case is fact-specific. We recommend mapping this before litigation — if enforcement in China is the goal, obtaining a Chinese court judgment directly (or an arbitral award enforceable under the New York Convention) may be the more reliable path.
In Chinese court proceedings, a party must be represented by a PRC-licensed lawyer (or a citizen recommended by a relevant organization or the party's employer). Foreign lawyers may attend court hearings but cannot appear as counsel of record or address the court directly. In international commercial court (CICC) proceedings, the rules permit foreign lawyers to serve as representatives under certain conditions, but the primary representation is still by PRC lawyers. In CIETAC and HKIAC arbitrations seated in China or Hong Kong, however, there is no restriction — foreign lawyers may represent parties fully. This is another reason why arbitration is often preferred by foreign parties who wish to use their trusted international counsel alongside Chinese counsel.
We represent foreign enterprises in litigation before Chinese courts at all levels, from pre-filing strategy and interim relief through trial, appeal, and enforcement.
Contact Danny Luo