Taihe – A Lawyer’s Story | Upholding Boundaries with the Law as Our Measure, Safeguarding Corporate Operations with Advocacy as Our Shield
Release Date:
2026-09-05
Editor’s Note:
In Taihe, every lawyer has their own story.
Some have moved from the bench to the defense table; others, having completed their studies abroad, have chosen Taihe; and still others have forged their journey here, transforming from interns into partners. Their backgrounds may differ, and their areas of expertise vary, yet they all share a common ethos: professionalism, resilience, and warmth.
This is precisely the intention behind launching our “Taihe: Lawyers’ Stories” column. We hope to show you the most authentic side of the Taihe lawyers—beyond the courtroom. And through their stories, we aim to help more people understand that at Taihe, law is not merely a profession; it is a passion worth entrusting to.
Q: Did you have any other professional experiences before becoming a lawyer? How did those experiences shape your legal career?
A: Before my discharge, I served as a guard and disciplinary inspector at the Nanjing Artillery Academy. This role differed significantly from typical military posts—it was the “enforcer of rules” within the barracks, requiring not only a thorough command of military regulations but also the precise application of those rules in a variety of on‑site situations. It demanded both unwavering adherence to order and a measured, flexible approach to handling each circumstance. Over the years, what became deeply ingrained was not only an ironclad ability to enforce discipline and obey orders, but also a mindset that “every action is grounded in evidence, every task follows procedure, and every decision is made with due proportion.”
After leaving the military and returning to campus to complete my law degree, I entered the legal profession—and quickly found that its way of thinking aligns remarkably well with my own. This is especially true of the commercial litigation and economic‑crime defense work I now specialize in: at their core, both involve sifting through the facts and delineating rights and responsibilities within the framework of established legal rules. In commercial litigation, it means reconstructing the truth amid complex transactions and clearly assigning liability; in defending against economic crimes, it means rigorously upholding procedural safeguards and evidentiary standards at the very boundary between criminality and non‑criminality. The discipline I learned in my military service—“not overstepping boundaries, remaining impartial, prioritizing evidence, and adhering to procedure”—remains the bedrock of my practice to this day. What I honed in the barracks was fair adjudication according to the yardstick of military discipline; what I uphold in the courtroom is the protection of legitimate rights and interests as measured by the law. At their heart, these principles are fundamentally one and the same.
Q: You currently focus on commercial litigation and the defense of economic‑related criminal offenses. Why did you choose these two intersecting areas? Could you share an impressive defense case?
A: I chose this path based on a straightforward observation I’ve made throughout my practice: the legal risks faced by businesses are never isolated. Many high‑value commercial disputes harbor underlying criminal risks, while numerous accusations of economic crimes often stem from intricate commercial transactions. Focusing solely on commercial litigation can leave one oblivious to emerging criminal risks; conversely, concentrating exclusively on criminal defense without grasping the underlying business dynamics makes it difficult to address the core of the case. Only by bridging these two domains can we truly help our clients resolve their fundamental issues.
The case that left the deepest impression was a bribery matter involving a non‑state employee. The defendant was accused by a cooperating supplier of leveraging his official position to accept kickbacks, with the amount in question exceeding one million yuan. Following the initiation of a criminal investigation by the public security authorities, the defendant was placed under criminal detention. Upon accepting the mandate, I did not rush to formulate a defense strategy; instead, I adopted the military‑style approach of “drawing up lists and scrutinizing details.” I obtained all transaction contracts, delivery notes, reconciliation statements, payment records, and correspondence spanning the past three years, meticulously cross‑referencing each item against the charges. Ultimately, we determined that part of the alleged sum actually represented batch‑purchase rebates, quality‑compliance bonuses, and ancillary technical service fees as stipulated in the parties’ contracts—each supported by relevant contractual provisions and factual business circumstances. These were standard commercial arrangements, not illicit gains obtained through abuse of office. Based on this pivotal finding, we systematically categorized and organized the evidence, crafted a comprehensive defense brief, and engaged in repeated communications with the investigating authorities to clearly delineate the boundary between ordinary commercial transactions and official misconduct. Taking into account the defendant’s proactive cooperation with the investigation, full restitution of the disputed funds, and consistently good conduct, we submitted a plea for a lenient sentence. As a result, the defendant was ultimately granted probation.
This case has further reinforced my conviction: the key to mounting a defense against economic crimes often lies not in the statutory text of the criminal code, but in the realities of business logic. Only by truly understanding the transaction can one craft a precise and effective defense; and only by steadfastly respecting the boundaries of the law can one demonstrate true professional expertise.
A: Stress is indeed a constant in my life. When faced with it, I still carry many habits honed during my time in the military: for example, I set aside a fixed time each day to review my work milestones, breaking down complex cases into small, actionable tasks one by one, and using concrete steps to ease the anxiety of the unknown. Rather than dwelling endlessly on the outcome, I prefer to focus my energy on controllable aspects—examining case files, gathering evidence, and refining my defense strategy. The more thoroughly I prepare, the more at ease I feel. Outside of work, I make it a habit to relieve stress through fitness and hiking, temporarily stepping away from case files and legal statutes to let my mind clear. Often, ideas that had been stuck suddenly click while I’m moving. Additionally, when tackling particularly intricate cases, I like to hand‑draw complete flowcharts of the transaction process and timelines of evidence, weaving scattered pieces of information into a coherent logical chain. This process of organizing and clarifying not only helps calm my emotions but also sharpens my thinking.
Q: Have you ever encountered a situation in your practice where the client’s circumstances were understandable, yet their position was not entirely justified? How did you handle it?
A: Such situations are, in fact, quite common in commercial litigation and economic‑crime cases. For example, some enterprises that have suffered breaches of contract may indeed deserve sympathy, yet their failure to preserve evidence in a manner that meets legal standards makes it difficult for the court to fully uphold their claims. Similarly, in certain economic‑crime cases, the parties may lack any subjective intent to act maliciously; they may have crossed the legal line merely due to industry practices or a lack of awareness. Nevertheless, objectively speaking, their conduct nonetheless satisfies all the elements required to constitute a crime.
In situations like these, my guiding principle has always been: “First, lay out the facts plainly; then, do everything possible.” I begin by candidly informing my clients of the case’s objective shortcomings, the legal risks involved, and the likely outcomes—making no unrealistic promises and avoiding any attempt to sidestep unfavorable circumstances. On that basis, I exhaust every viable avenue within the bounds of the law: in commercial matters, I strive to secure the best possible result through mediation, the submission of additional evidence, and adjustments to the litigation strategy; in criminal cases, I diligently identify and emphasize statutory and discretionary mitigating factors—such as voluntary surrender, restitution, a low degree of subjective malice, and minimal social harm—to obtain the most favorable disposition permitted by law. Sympathy is one thing, but the law has its own standards. What a lawyer can and should do is advocate for the client’s maximum lawful rights and interests, not overstep those boundaries to cater to emotional appeals.
Q: You are very fond of Beccaria’s “On Crimes and Punishments.” How has this book influenced your professional philosophy?
A: “On Crimes and Punishments” was the first work of legal philosophy I read when I was beginning my studies in law, and even now I still occasionally revisit it. The principles articulated by Beccaria centuries ago—such as the principle of legality, the principle of proportionality between crime and punishment, opposition to torture, and the view that the purpose of punishment is prevention rather than retribution—remain the cornerstones of criminal law today. For me, the book’s greatest influence has been its enduring ability to keep me mindful of… “Respect the boundaries of punishment.” This principle has guided my approach, particularly in handling economic‑crime cases. I have consistently upheld one guiding tenet: rigorously distinguish between commercial disputes and criminal offenses, and firmly oppose the criminalization of civil matters. In practice, many legitimate business losses or contractual breaches are all too easily recast as fraud, embezzlement, or other crimes; yet once criminal proceedings are initiated, the impact on both the enterprise and the individuals involved is often devastating. This philosophy extends to my commercial litigation work as well. When assisting clients in resolving commercial disputes, I do not hastily recommend a criminal route simply to expedite a resolution; instead, I first determine whether the issue constitutes a civil breach or a criminal offense. Conversely, in criminal defense, I begin by examining the underlying nature of the commercial transaction, arguing that the conduct at issue falls within the scope of ordinary business activity rather than constituting a crime. The true purpose of law lies not in harsh penalties, but in clear boundaries and a just order—this is what this book has taught me, and it remains the steadfast principle I adhere to in every case I handle.
Q: Why did you choose to join Taihe in the first place? What aspects of Taihe appeal to you most?
A: The core reason I chose Taihe is its deep professional expertise and collaborative culture. As a well-established, full-service law firm rooted in Jiangsu, Taihe boasts not only extensive practical experience but also a highly mature system of specialized committees. For me, what matters most is a platform that can seamlessly integrate cross‑disciplinary expertise—enabling me to tap into more narrowly focused commercial specialists when handling complex business disputes, and to engage in in‑depth team deliberations on challenging economic‑crime matters. This integrated, synergistic approach delivers clients more comprehensive, higher‑quality legal services than working in isolation. Moreover, I deeply resonate with Taihe’s professional ethos: putting expertise and ethical integrity first, eschewing short‑term profit at all costs, and never compromising the boundaries of professional conduct. This down-to-earth, results‑oriented approach aligns closely with my own practice philosophy.
Q: If you were to describe Taihe in three words, which three would you choose?
A: I would choose steadfastness, expertise, and collaboration.
Q: What is your professional creed? How do you view the social responsibility of lawyers?
A: My professional creed is: to discern business principles, uphold the highest standards of criminal practice, and demonstrate unwavering diligence.
In my view, a lawyer’s social responsibility extends beyond simply handling the cases at hand. Specifically in my practice, on the one hand, I work to clarify transactional rules and safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of market entities through each commercial litigation, thereby helping to foster a fair business environment; on the other hand, I strive to uphold the principle of legality in criminal law by defending against economic crimes, protecting the lawful rights of my clients, and preventing undue criminal intervention in economic activities.
Beyond that, I also hope to translate the lessons learned from handling cases into tangible risk‑management value. Many companies find themselves entangled in criminal matters precisely because of a vague understanding of legal boundaries; by proactively implementing robust risk‑prevention measures, we can avert numerous irreversible losses. This, in my view, is the social responsibility of commercial and criminal defense lawyers: it extends far beyond post‑event remedies, encompassing proactive empowerment—leveraging our expertise to help more enterprises operate in compliance and achieve sustainable, long‑term success. While economic interests underpin professional growth, they must never be pursued at the expense of legal boundaries or professional integrity. Only by earning through lawful means and acting with due restraint can we ensure lasting progress.
Q: In terms of professional development, are there any initiatives you’ve long wanted to undertake but haven’t yet systematically advanced?
A: What I’ve long wanted to do is develop a comprehensive framework for corporate criminal‑risk prevention and control. For example, in high‑frequency risk areas such as contract transactions, financial and tax management, and the performance of official duties, I would dissect specific risk points using real‑world cases and offer practical, actionable compliance recommendations, helping entrepreneurs and business leaders clearly understand “what they can do and where they must not cross the line.” In many instances, even a successful post‑event defense pales in comparison to the value of proactively avoiding risks. Turning my litigation experience into risk‑management tools—so that more companies can steer clear of legal red lines and operate smoothly—is my top priority moving forward. Additionally, I hope to engage more actively in public‑interest legal‑education initiatives aimed at businesses, leveraging my professional expertise to deliver tangible, meaningful contributions.
Wang Kai, Taihe Law Firm
Follow us
Related News