Just when the Xinjiang incident struck the world with its heavy casualties, Beijing's Municipal Bureau of Justice notified all lawyers to accept any Xinjiang case with prudence, report to the authority, and follow the supervision and guidance of the authority.
Beijing lawyer Li Fangping indicated that every lawyer in Beijing had received this notice. Li questioned this approach, “In fact, this serves as an order which forbids attorneys to accept any Xinjiang incident related case. Take Tibetan cases as examples, those cases were very troublesome to work with. Now with this order of reporting to the Bureau of Justice, the technical difficulty is further enhanced.”
Beijing lawyer Jiang Tianyong explained that even though the Justice Bureau’s notice did not explicitly request the attorneys not to take the case, it identified the nature of the Xinjiang incident with the statement, “The vast attorneys ought to protect the image of the Capital attorneys and safeguard their stand in the national unity.”
In this case, would it mean that only Beijing lawyers are under the jurisdiction of the Beijing Municipal Bureau of Justice? Could lawyers of other regions take the Xinjiang cases?
Jiang responded that Beijing lawyers are generally on the front line. If no Beijing lawyers dare take the Xinjiang case, no other lawyers would, with the exception of the props lawyers designated by the regime.
Jiang Tianyong had requested to serve as one of the defendant attorneys for the March 14 Lhasa uprising last year, but was intervened by the Bureau of Justice. His attorney license was revoked during the 2009 annual bar evaluation.
Another Beijing attorney, Li Xiongbing, also appealed to the authority to lift the ban on accepting Lhasa cases and providing legal services to the Tibetans. As it turned out, no lawyer was allowed to take the Lhasa cases under the suppression of the authority. Take attorney Teng Biao as the example, his license was revoked consequently as early as in 2008.
