Chinese lawyer Tao Bo published an open letter to his affiliated Guangdong Light Law Firm questioning the legitimacy of his termination after he joined a petition called for the strengthening of legislation after Hu Xinyu's case.
Director Zheng and all partners:
On 17th February 2023, you sent me notice of the termination of my employment with the law firm. The conditions in the notice took effect on 1st March. After much consideration, I still have some questions that I hope you can answer.
Firstly, why the rush? When Director Zheng called me on the noon of 16th February and asked whether I would renew my contract, it was presented as a suggestion. I replied that I needed to consider it. However, the next day, on 17th February, I received a notice from the receptionist and manager that my employment had been terminated with a deadline. This was only one day later. On the same day, Director Zheng asked for the opinion of all partners via WeChat regarding whether they agreed to terminate my employment, and mentioned that he would give me 15 days to consider. How could the deadline given to me be reduced from 15 to 11 days in less than two hours? What happened during these two hours that made you so impatient?
Secondly, what is the reason behind the termination? Zheng's consultation with all partners asks "whether everyone agrees with the above decision, please indicate,” where the "decision" refers to "whether to give Tao Bo 15 days to consider whether to voluntarily terminate the employment contract with Light, and if Tao Bo does not respond within 15 days, the firm will officially terminate the employment relationship from March 1, 2023, without handling the annual review procedures for Tao Bo,”. In addition to the content of the terminate notice later issued by the law firm, this indicates pressure from the judiciary bureau and concerns about not terminating my employment.
Regarding the termination notice, it stated: "…At the same time, after the appearance of the Hu Xinyu incident, you participated in signing a joint letter, calling on the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress to strengthen legislation and improve relevant judicial systems through the publication of an open letter." Comparing this with Article 38, Paragraph (3) of the "Regulations on Lawyers' Practice Management," which prohibits lawyers to perform their duties by: "Using means such as forming alliances, signing joint letters, publishing open letters, organising online gatherings, and expressing support in the name of discussing a case, to create public opinion pressure, attack and defame the judiciary and judicial systems," there is a fundamental difference between the two. It is clear that there is right and wrong, and it can be judged easily.
Furthermore, when Director Zheng consulted all partners, he stated upfront: "Recently, according to a notice from the Judicial Bureau and based on the situation known by the national security department,…the Judicial Bureau requested that the law firm interview Tao Bo… and strength political discipline… to prevent individual lawyers and the law firm from being investigated and punished for violating relevant regulations due to the actions of a single lawyer”(see attachment 1) Ultimately, is the so-called "being investigated…due to the actions of a single lawyer” justified? And how did the so-called "pressure" come about? These issues require clarification.
Finally, I have to say that the social impact caused by the aforementioned incident may be irreparable. What I regret is that this uproar has exposed your "three nos" of no principles, no bottom line, and no sense of responsibility. This has destroyed the foundation for us to continue coexisting and makes me feel that if I continue to associate with you, it would be equivalent to self-inflicted humiliation. Therefore, it seems that our separation may be a "win-win" solution.
Sincerely,
Tao Bo
21st March 2023
Attachment (1) Solicitation of opinions from "All Partners" by Zhengshe on February 17, 2023:
@ All Partners:
Recently, according to a notice from the Judicial Bureau and based on the situation known to the national security department, our firm's recruited lawyer Tao Bo participated in the signature campaign regarding the Hu Xinyu incident and published an open letter to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, calling for legislation to improve relevant judicial systems. As a result, the Judicial Bureau requires our firm to both interview Tao Bo to understand the situation and strengthen political discipline education for practicing lawyers, strictly regulate management, actively discourage individual lawyers from making improper comments on sensitive and significant cases through collusion, joint signature campaigns, and open letters, creating public opinion pressure, and preventing individual lawyers and law firms from being investigated and punished for violating relevant regulations due to the actions of a single lawyer.
After receiving the above notice, we promptly asked Tao Bo about the situation and specifically reminded him to comply with the "Lawyer Practice Management Regulations" and other relevant regulations. However, given that Tao Bo's health has not been very good in recent years, he is almost 70 years old, and he has been away from the firm for a long time without taking on any business. Especially since Tao Bo himself is indeed involved in the signature campaign and publishing of open letters, in order to avoid risks to Light and all professional lawyers brought by the Hu Xinyu incident, we advised Tao Bo to take the initiative to terminate his employment relationship with Light. Tao Bo agreed to consider this.
We are now seeking the opinions of some partners and plan to give Tao Bo 15 days to consider whether to take the initiative to apply for termination of his employment relationship with Light. If Tao Bo has not replied or agreed within 15 days, the firm will officially terminate his employment relationship from March 1, 2023, and will not process his annual review procedures.
Please indicate whether you agree with the above decision.