The Critical Absence of Attorney-Client Confidentiality in China: Risks and Remedies

Home | China Law Blog | The Critical Absence of Attorney-Client Confidentiality in China: Risks and Remedies Table of Contents Toggle China Does Not Have an Attorney-Client Privilege In the United States and much of the rest of the world, private communications between a lawyer and their client are protected from disclosure without the client's consent. This fundamental protection does not exist in China. The Critical Risks of No Attorney-Client Privilege in China Confidentiality is the foundation of a trusting relationship between lawyers and clients. American and European lawyers are obligated to keep client information strictly confidential. In contrast, Chinese lawyers are only prohibited from disclosing national secrets, clients’ trade secrets, and the privacy of parties learned during representation 1. Real World Risks of No Attorney Confidentiality Here are some concrete examples where companies have paid a stiff price for not accounting for how lawyer-client issues differ across borders. Several years ago, two of our international lawyers met with in-house counsel for a large Korean chaebol. The in-house counsel wanted advice on a complicated, multi-party breach of contract case involving several American high-tech companies. During the meeting, he handed us a two-page letter written by an American attorney on behalf of his client to the Korean lawyer representing the American company in Korea. The letter outlined the American company's settlement strategy, stating a willingness to settle for $600,000 but instructing the Korean attorney to start negotiations at $1.4 million. We initially thought the American company mentioned in the letter was aligned with our Korean client. After re-reading the letter multiple times and expressing our confusion, the Korean in-house lawyer, who held an American legal degree, clarified that the American company was actually opposing the chaebol in the case. The American company in the letter was opposing the chaebol, and the letter detailed the American company's settlement strategy. The American company's Korean attorney had shared this confidential letter with the chaebol's in-house lawyer, who was a 'big brother' figure from law school and had been seeking to secure legal work from the chaebol. We know of multiple instances where Western companies have overpaid or been cheated because their lawyers revealed confidences to the other side. This is common in joint venture and large procurement deals. Essentially, this is similar to a kickback scheme but involves your own lawyer. The idea that lawyers must keep their clients' secrets has been a rule in the Western world for hundreds of years. The privilege fundamentally informs American company expectations of the legal profession, to a degree that creates dangerous assumptions when dealing with lawyers in jurisdictions outside the common-law tradition, where the privilege might not be as extensive—or may not exist at all. For example, under Washington State law, a lawyer cannot be forced to reveal client communications without the client's consent. The U.S. Supreme Court has emphasized that justice requires people to get expert advice from lawyers, which they will only seek if they trust their lawyers to keep their secrets. While the U.S. Supreme Court's reasoning is compelling, it is not universal. In China, lawyers have a general duty of confidentiality (Art. 83, Law on Lawyers), but they can testify against their clients in civil cases. Though Chinese criminal defense attorneys can choose to maintain confidentiality (Art. 46, Crim. P. Law), this discretion does not extend to other lawyers. For instance, a lawyer defending a client in a tax evasion case can choose not to testify against them, but other lawyers involved do not have this protection. Beyond legal considerations, practical issues arise. American lawyers fear disciplinary action, including losing their license to practice law. While Chinese lawyers are also subject to oversight from the government and bar authorities, this oversight is usually driven by political concerns rather than by the goal of protecting the client. Chinese lawyers are less likely to fear consequences for revealing confidential information, especially if the client is a foreign company, particularly an American one. This puts you in a vulnerable position if your Chinese lawyer benefits from disclosing your information. They might share your patent application with another client, tip off your competitor before filing your trademark, or reveal your willingness to pay a higher price per widget. Worse, if your Chinese lawyer is in trouble with authorities, they might report your company's missteps to curry favor. These scenarios are real and dangerous. 2. Precautions for Companies Given the limitations of attorney-client privilege in China, consider these options to mitigate risk: Engage Foreign-Licensed Lawyers in China: Law firms with lawyers licensed in other jurisdictions, such as the U.S. or the UK, can offer greater confidentiality protection due to the stricter attorney-client privilege rules applicable in those countries. Craft Clear Confidentiality Agreements: Entering into a comprehensive confidentiality agreement with any Chinese lawyers you engage can help establish clear expectations regarding the handling of confidential information. This may provide you with marginally increased confidentiality protections. Limit Information Sharing with Chinese Counsel: When working with Chinese counsel, practice a "need-to-know" basis when sharing confidential information. Only disclose what is absolutely essential for your particular matter. You do not want to discover that your communication is not privileged after disclosing confidential information. Before working with lawyers in other countries, you should solicit help from an experienced international lawyer in your own country or another country with attorney-client protections. Conclusion The lack of a comprehensive attorney-client privilege in China, particularly in light of the current geopolitical climate, presents a significant challenge for foreign companies seeking legal counsel. This blog post aims to raise awareness of this critical issue and equip companies with strategies to mitigate risk. Check Out Our China Law Services Share Twitter Facebook LinkedIn E-mail Comment Fred Rocafort Fred leads Harris Sliwoski’s intellectual property practice and is the coordinator of the firm’s international team. Much of Fred’s practice consists of helping cannabis businesses protect their brands. He also works with entrepreneurs and companies entering the Web3 space, a new frontier for IP law. Prior to joining Harris Sliwoski, Fred worked overseas for more than a decade, in both government and private sector roles. Fred is a regular contributor to the award-winning China Law Blog and Canna Law Blog. Fred began his career overseas as a U.S. consular officer in Guangzhou, China, where he advocated for fairer treatment of American companies and citizens in China and for stronger intellectual property rights enforcement. After entering the private sector, Fred worked at a Shanghai law firm as a foreign legal advisor and later joined one of the oldest American law firms in China, helping foreign companies navigate the Chinese legal environment. He also led the legal team at a Hong Kong-based brand protection consultancy, spending most of his time out in the field, protecting clients against counterfeiters and fraudsters in Greater China, Southeast Asia and Latin America. In addition to his IP work, as a native Spanish speaker, Fred works closely with different Harris Sliwoski teams on Latin America and Spain matters. Fred also provides advice to cannabis industry participants and other businesses on import and export transactions. Fred is an ardent supporter of FC Barcelona—and would be even in the absence of Catalan forebears who immigrated to Puerto Rico in the mid-1800s. Harris Sliwoski Attorney Read more posts [email protected] Read More Basics of China Business Law, Legal News Related Posts September 15, 2026 Your AI-Drafted China Contract Says It Needs a Lawyer. Listen to It. September 11, 2026 Forensic Accountants in China Business Litigation: How True Numbers Can Tell the Wrong Story September 4, 2026 China NNN Agreement or Trademark Registration? You Usually Need Both September 1, 2026 AI Didn't Replace Lawyers. It Gave Us the 48-Page Contract. August 27, 2026 Do I Need a China NNN Agreement or a China Manufacturing Agreement? Usually Both. August 26, 2026 China’s New Overseas Investment Rules: Can Your Chinese Investor Actually Get the Money Out? August 24, 2026 International IP Protection for Startups: What to Protect and Where August 19, 2026 The Documents Are the International Deal August 19, 2026 China Supplier Fraud in Yiwu: Why We Recommended the Police, Not a Lawsuit August 17, 2026 China Trademark Registration: Why U.S. Companies Need More Than a Filing Agent August 10, 2026 Buying Expensive Equipment from China: Seven Questions to Answer Before You Pay August 7, 2026 DDP Shipping Risks: What Boise Cascade’s Guilty Plea Means for U.S. Buyers August 6, 2026 Protecting Your Artwork Internationally: What Artists Need to Do Before the Work Travels August 5, 2026 Your China Employee Signed the Vacation Policy. You Can Still Lose. July 29, 2026 The RedNote Contract Lesson for Companies Doing Business in China Leave a comment Cancel reply