A: My practice focuses on construction‑related dispute resolution. A defining feature of construction‑law matters is that they are never purely legal issues; rather, they constitute a complex interplay of law, engineering expertise, and industry practices.
In 2024, I handled a case with a claim amount of only one to two million yuan—relatively small in the construction‑engineering field. Yet it left an indelible impression on me. The case encapsulated virtually every typical challenge in construction‑dispute litigation: termination of the contract mid‑project; failure to conduct竣工验收 upon the contractor’s withdrawal; the employer’s unauthorized use of an unfinished project; how to determine the cost of incomplete works under a fixed‑price contract; allocation of liability when quality defects arise after unauthorized use; whether the retention money should be returned following contract termination; and the interface between warranty obligations before and after the issuance of Judicial Interpretation No. 2. It was like a miniature textbook on construction‑engineering disputes.
But what truly left me feeling as though “a layer of skin had been peeled off” was not a legal issue, but a technical one. The parties involved in this case lacked formal education and were unable to accurately describe the on-site construction conditions, let alone draft any written submissions themselves. Meanwhile, I am a lawyer, not a construction professional—so how do I clearly lay out those technical facts? How do I identify professional gaps in cost‑estimation and quality‑assessment reports? And how do I craft a legal brief that judges will pore over word by word? These are matters that statutes alone cannot resolve; they demand painstaking, step‑by‑step analysis. A single misapplication of a coefficient in a cost‑estimation report can easily translate into a discrepancy of hundreds of thousands of yuan; a slight error in establishing causation during a quality assessment can completely upend the entire allocation of liability.
I spent a great deal of time studying the pricing rules in contracts, the characteristics of items on the bill of quantities, and the logic behind applying unit‑price rates, even going so far as to grasp some fundamental construction techniques and common quality issues. The process was indeed grueling: I endured one round after another—first instance, second instance, and even a first instance retrial following remand.
But it is precisely in this case that I truly came to realize, The “expertise” of an industry‑specific lawyer goes far beyond memorizing legal statutes; it requires delving deep into the industry and grasping its technical logic, so that “the right person can speak in the language of their field.” Parties retain lawyers precisely because they cannot handle the matter themselves. If we were to rely solely on clients for technical and specialized issues, where would the lawyer’s value lie?
Q: How can lawyers achieve specialization? In your view, what are the most essential professional qualities that an outstanding lawyer should possess?
A: Legal knowledge is fundamental for every lawyer—statutes can be looked up, and judicial precedents can be researched. What truly sets practitioners apart is this: when faced with a pile of disorganized materials, can you distill them into a clear line of reasoning? And when dealing with a client who lacks legal expertise, can you reconstruct their fragmented account into legally meaningful facts?
This skill cannot be mastered overnight. It demands relentless, hands-on practice—pore over case files, weave airtight chains of evidence, and thoroughly grapple with technical issues. Some colleagues find construction‑law cases exhausting, fragmented, and daunting; yet it is precisely this very “difficulty” that erects the professional barriers that set the field apart.
Professionalism is not a label; it is a state of sustained commitment.
Beyond deep learning, I believe that outstanding lawyers also need two key qualities. First is the ability to think across disciplines—construction‑law practitioners must have a solid grasp of engineering; only by understanding the industry’s underlying logic can they devise solutions that are truly implementable. Second is meticulous attention to detail—in construction‑law matters, even a single visa form, a communication memo, or a date stamp can determine the outcome of a case. The details hold the key to victory. 。
Of course, a strong sense of responsibility is the bottom line. Every case we handle represents the very lifeblood of a company or the hard-earned savings of a contractor over several years. This profession brooks no carelessness.
Q:
What work habits do you think an excellent lawyer should cultivate?
A: First, pre-case simulation. Construction‑related case files often run to hundreds or even thousands of pages; without rehearsing in advance, it’s all too easy to lose your composure at trial. Every night before a hearing, I make it a habit to run the entire proceedings through my mind—anticipating what the judge will ask, where the opposing side is likely to strike, and how I should respond at each stage.
Second, refine it word by word. I follow a “three‑pass” approach when drafting legal documents: First, I sketch out the structure to ensure a coherent and well‑organized argument; second, I eliminate unnecessary verbiage, stripping away boilerplate language and emotional rhetoric—every sentence either states a fact, presents evidence, or cites the law; and third, I read the text aloud to refine the flow, revising any passages that sound awkward.
Third, conduct continuous post-mortems. After a case concludes, take time to reflect: identify which judgments were spot-on and where improvements could have been made. This kind of post‑mortem analysis is far more effective than handling ten new cases. Avoiding the same mistakes twice—this is the most straightforward form of professional growth.
Fourth, delve deeply into the subject. When faced with an unfamiliar problem, don’t shy away—dive in and see it through. Treat every case as if it were the first, and examine every issue until you have no lingering doubts.
Q: How do you typically interact with clients? What key considerations should you keep in mind when communicating with them?
A: My principle is: Listen more, don’t follow blindly, and have your own opinions.
When clients come to a lawyer, what they often need is not just a legal opinion, but someone who will listen carefully to their story. Many crucial facts are precisely hidden in the details that the client deems “unimportant.” Therefore, the first step in communication is not to tell the other party “what they should do,” but to let them finish speaking.
But “listening” does not mean “believing everything.” A client’s claims may be legally untenable, and their strategy could entail significant risks. At such junctures, the lawyer must step in and, based on professional judgment, outline viable alternatives. Effective communication is not about blindly accommodating; rather, it means showing the client that you both understand their situation and can offer a sound, reliable path forward. That, in fact, is what truly demonstrates responsibility to the client.
Q: If, during the course of an investigation, you discover that a party has failed to truthfully disclose key facts, how would you typically proceed?
A: In fact, there are two types of this situation.
The first type is the party concerned. Unconscious omission 。 It’s not that he’s trying to hide anything; rather, his assessment of the legal implications differs from ours—he may deem a particular detail insignificant, when in fact it is legally pivotal. In such situations, there’s no need to rush; by asking targeted questions, you can gently guide him to reveal the full picture step by step.
The second type is the party concerned. Deliberate concealment This situation is relatively tricky, but the guiding principle is clear: communicate openly and lay out the consequences. I would tell him directly, “You can choose not to say anything here, but if the other side presents evidence against you in court, we’ll still have to face it. Rather than being caught off guard, it’s better to bring everything into the open now—I’ll help you prepare a contingency plan in advance.”
Overall, when you discover that a party has been withholding information, avoid rushing to dismiss them in your mind. The relationship between an attorney and their client is one of trust, Concealing information ultimately harms the parties’ own interests. Only by maintaining professionalism and patiently guiding the process to uncover the facts can we truly uphold our responsibility to the case.
Q: When working with vulnerable populations or clients facing difficult circumstances, how can we maintain professional boundaries while preserving our capacity for human understanding?
A: The legal profession itself carries social value—we are here to help people. In the construction industry, the most frequently encountered vulnerable group is the migrant worker community. After toiling away for long hours, they often go unpaid and, when they come for advice, speak with a palpable sense of apprehension.
When dealing with such clients, it’s important to exercise skill in communication. First, listen attentively—though they may not express themselves clearly, allow them to finish speaking. Second, provide gentle guidance and reassurance, explaining legal procedures in plain, easy-to-understand language rather than resorting to jargon. Finally, make them feel that you’re genuinely helping them find solutions, rather than simply going through the motions.
Often, when clients come to a lawyer, they seek not only a legal solution but also understanding and validation. Professional expertise is the framework, while humanistic concern is the flesh and blood; only when the two are combined does one become a well-rounded lawyer. Lawyers should not be cold, mechanical technicians; after all, every case we handle is, at its core, a chapter in someone else’s life.
Q: If you had to describe Taihe in three words, which ones would you choose, and why?
A: Substantial, pragmatic, and results-oriented 。
“Heaviness” stems from the profound cultural heritage of Taihe. It hasn’t been built on sheer traffic or flashy marketing; instead, it has grown step by step through deep expertise in its field. Here, you can sense a down-to-earth, results‑driven work ethic—far from the restless pursuit of quick gains.
“Pragmatism” is a shared trait among the people of Taihe. What everyone discusses is “how to handle this case” and “how to interpret this legal issue,” focusing on the substance rather than the surface. Whether dealing with a case or with the parties involved, those at Taihe are driven by a simple, unwavering determination to see things through to completion.
“Accomplishing things” is the insight I’ve gained most deeply over the past few years at Taihe. The law firm provides young lawyers with a truly tangible platform: if you’re eager to take the stage, you’ll have the opportunity; if you’re willing to hone your skills, senior colleagues will be there to mentor you. Here, expertise isn’t built on hype—it’s earned, case by case.
Q: Do you think the legal profession is highly stressful? How do you typically manage work-related stress and physical fatigue?
A: The pressure is indeed considerable. For litigation lawyers, daily practice means living with a host of uncertainties—whether evidence will be admissible, what defenses the opposing side will raise, and how the judge will rule—all of which are beyond your complete control. Moreover, when a client entrusts you with their case, it is with trust; you don’t want to let that trust down, and that, in turn, creates an inherent sense of pressure.
My way of unwinding is pretty simple— Walk into the mountains and forests. When you’re feeling down or stuck on a case, take a walk in the mountains, by the woods, or beside the water—don’t think about anything, just let your mind go blank. Nature possesses a power that can pull people out of anxious moods. After taking a walk and coming back, my mind has calmed down, and my thoughts have actually become clearer.
Q: In your spare time from a busy work schedule, what hobbies do you enjoy to unwind?
A: One is exercise. . The body is a lawyer’s most valuable asset—construction‑related cases often require full‑day court hearings, and without robust physical stamina, it’s simply impossible to keep up. Exercise not only enhances physical fitness but also boosts work efficiency; when you’re energized, your thinking becomes sharper and your drafting more focused.
The other one is reading. I’ve gotten into the habit of flipping through a few pages before bed—not necessarily legal texts, but rather reading that helps me slow down. Days are packed with cases, clients, and countless tasks; settling in at night to read a few pages is my chance to connect with myself. At first glance, these pursuits may seem unrelated to my work, but over time they accumulate, shaping a lawyer’s depth of experience and sound judgment.
Q: Could you share a legal book or a legal film that you enjoy?
A: I recommend Teacher Luo Xiang’s book, “Circular Justice.”
This book is not, in the strict sense, a legal treatise; rather, it reads like an inner monologue by a jurist. In its pages, Luo Xiang discusses justice, morality, and the vocation of the legal professional, while also sharing his own doubts and reflections. He likens justice to a perfect circle: we may never be able to draw that absolute standard, yet each effort brings us closer to it.
After practicing law for a long time, it’s easy to fall into a purely technical mindset—focusing solely on evidence, adhering strictly to rules, and fixating on winning or losing. Yet “Circular Justice” reminds us that the ultimate goal of law is justice; a lawyer’s work is not merely about helping clients win their cases, but about upholding fairness in each concrete case and supporting real people. I wholeheartedly agree.
