Legal information

In the last issue, we talked about the expansion of the scope of administrative review. Today, lawyer Ying Ting will continue to talk about another highlight of the new regulations - the rights and restrictions of the respondent to hire a lawyer. This topic sounds more professional, but in fact it has something to do with both administrative agencies and enterprises. Why do you say that? Because the new regulations provide a very interesting provision: Administrative agencies can hire lawyers to participate in administrative reconsideration, but they cannot "move only with words and no action". In other words, they cannot just entrust lawyers to appear in court, and their own people will also get it. What is the reason for this? Let's take a look.

Can administrative agencies hire lawyers?

First, let’s clarify a basic issue: Administrative agencies can of course hire lawyers during the administrative review process. There is no problem with this. The new regulations do not limit the right of administrative agencies to hire lawyers. In fact, when many administrative agencies encounter complex administrative review cases, they will hire lawyers to participate out of consideration of professional capabilities. This is already very common in practice. After all, administrative review involves a large number of legal professional issues, and having the assistance of a lawyer is helpful for accurately answering legal questions and submitting evidence materials.

What's the restriction?

The new regulations restrict a special situation: administrative agencies cannot just entrust lawyers to appear in court, but their own people must also participate. In other words, there cannot be a situation where the administrative agency does not show up from the beginning to the end and only sends a lawyer to deal with the matter. The consideration behind this is very practical: the respondent of the administrative review is the agency that made the original administrative action. It knows its own administrative action best and knows what it thought at the time, what the basis was, and what the factual basis was. If only a lawyer is sent, the lawyer may not be able to explain many details clearly, which is not conducive to the review agency's investigation of the facts and making a fair decision.

Impact on actual work

This provision puts forward new requirements for the administrative agencies' response work. In the past, some agencies may have been accustomed to the practice of "entrusting lawyers with full authority to handle matters", but this is no longer possible. They must arrange for their own staff to participate in the review as agents, and the staff and lawyers cooperate with each other. In this way, administrative agencies must pay more attention when preparing review materials - they must sort out the entire process of administrative actions and ensure that staff can speak clearly and answer questions clearly. This is a good thing for standardizing administrative behavior and improving the ability of administrative agencies to respond to complaints.

YesReconsideration applicantinspiration

For companies applying for administrative reconsideration, this provision is also worthy of attention. In the past, some applicants may have worried: If the other party’s administrative agency hired a very powerful lawyer, but they could not afford to hire a lawyer, would they suffer a loss? Now this regulation tells us that review is not a "lawyer versus lawyer" legal competition. The core concern of the review agency is whether the administrative act itself is legal or unreasonable. Applicants can fully state their opinions and demands during the review process. There is no need to feel unsure just because the other party has a lawyer.

[Lawyer Yingting’s conclusion]

In general, the new regulations put appropriate restrictions on the right of administrative agencies to hire lawyers. The purpose is to make the review process more pragmatic and efficient, and to allow "experts" who truly understand the situation to participate in the review, rather than relying solely on "outside brains" to deal with it. This change may not seem significant, but it is of positive significance for improving the substantive effect of administrative review.