Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Lawyer investigation orders play a crucial role in facilitating evidence collection and improving judicial efficiency in civil trials in China. Despite their widespread application in practice, the mechanism governing their implementation remains ambiguous. This article begins by examining regulatory documents from 19 provinces and municipalities that have issued specific provisions on lawyer investigation orders, and traces the evolution of their use. Through interviews with judges and lawyers, the study finds that the lawyer investigation order reflects an incomplete shift toward an adversarial model, and uncovers judges’ persistent tendency to prioritize the pursuit of factual truth over procedural clarity. Since lawyer investigation orders balance public authority and private rights, their issuance should adhere to the principle of proportionality, including a clearer definition of what constitutes “objective reasons” for not obtaining evidence. To operationalize this standard, this article proposes a preliminary review mechanism, supplemented by a negative list that would offer judges clearer and more structured guidance.

Keywords

lawyer investigation order evidence collection inquisitorial system judicial system of China civil trail

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Beisner

(2010) Discovering a better way: The need for effective civil litigation reform. Duke LJ 60: 547–596.

Brazil

(1978) The adversary character of civil discovery: A critique of proposals for change. Vanderbilt Law Review 30: 1295–1361.

Cao

(2019) On the practical basis and normative rationality of civil investigation orders. The Jurist 3: 29.

Chen

(2000) The judicial control of investigation power. Tribune of Political Science and Law 6: 111–119.

Duarte

Sampaio

(2018) Proportionality in Law. Springer.

Dworkin

(1986) Law’s Empire. Fontana Press London.

Fahey

Tao

(2014) The pretrial discovery process in civil cases: A comparison of evidence discovery between China and the United States. Boston College International and Comparative Law Review 37: 281–332.

FDI China (2022) Chinese city-tier system: A guide for foreign investors. 20 June. Available at: https:// fdichina.com/ blog/ chinese-city-tier-system- investment-guide (accessed 18 November 2025).

Frank

(1950) Courts of First Instance–Myths and Realities in American Judiciary. Princeton University Press.

10.

Fuller

(1961) The adversary system. In: Berman

(ed) Talks on American Law. Vol. 30. Random House, 34–35.

11.

Fuller

(1964) The Morality of Law. Yale University Press.

12.

Hart

(1994) The Concept of Law, 2nd edn. Clarendon Press.

13.

Hazard

(1998) Discovery and the role of the judge in civil law jurisdictions. Notre Dame Law Review 73: 1017–1028.

14.

(2025) Behind China’s first investigation order: Breaking through reform obstacles. Shanghai Rule of Law Daily, 26 March. Available at: https:// news.qq.com/rain/a/20250326A077AH00 (accessed 11 February 2026).

15.

Zhao

(2022) Practice status and institutional construction of lawyer investigation orders: An empirical study based on Zhejiang Province. Zhejiang Social Sciences 3: 58.

16.

Johnston

Picaty

(2023) Efficiency and Bureaucratisation of Criminal Justice. Routledge.

17.

Jolowicz

(2000) On Civil Procedure. Cambridge University Press. pp.205–221.

18.

Jolowicz

(2003) Adversarial and inquisitorial models of civil procedure. ICLQ 52: 281.

19.

Lasser

(1995) Judicial (self-)portraits: Judicial discourse in the French legal system. Yale LJ 104: 1325. 1326–27.

20.

(2010) On the right of parties to apply for investigation and collection of evidence in civil litigation. The Jurist 3: 13.

21.

Loevinger

(1958) Facts, evidence and legal proof’. Case Western Reserve Law Review 9: 154.

22.

MacLean

(1982) Judicial discretion in the civil law. Louisiana Law Review 43(1): 45–56.

23.

Pardieck

(2021) Discovery in Japan. Indiana International and Comparative Law Review 31: 61–128.

24.

Patton

(2015) Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods, 4th edn. Sage Publications.

25.

Stadler

(2003) The multiple roles of judges and attorneys in modern civil litigation. Hastings International and Comparative Law Review 27: 55.

26.

Subrin

(2002) Discovery in global perspective: Are we nuts? DePaul Law Review 52: 299.

27.

Tang

Zhang

Jiang

Liang

(2008) Legal attributes and suggestions for improvement of the investigation order system. Journal of Law Application 7: 74.

28.

(2021) Guangzhou issued more than 33,000 lawyer investigation orders in four years, with an evidence collection success rate above 80%. Southern Metropolis Daily – N Video. 13 June. Available at: https:// m.mp. oeeee.com/a/ BAAFRD000020210813547850.html (accessed 11 February 2026).

29.

Xiao

Shang

(2024) Systematic construction of the evidence collection system by party application. Law Science Magazine 6: 86–101.

30.

Zweigert

Kötz

(1998) An Introduction to Comparative Law (Tony Weir tr). 3rd edn. Oxford University Press.

“Unavailable evidence” in civil trials–dilemmas and implications of lawyer investigation orders in China

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References