Beijing Lawyers Association: Confirmed that lawyer Liu Nuanxi violated regulations in the Jiang Ge case and publicly condemned her
On March 2, The Paper learned from Jiang Ge’s mother, Jiang Qiulian, that she had recently received the Beijing Lawyers Association’s “Notification of Complaint Investigation Result” and “Disciplinary Decision” which showed that Liu Nuanxi (former name: Liu Xin) represented In the case of "Jiang Qiulian v. Liu Nuanxi's right to life dispute" (hereinafter referred to as the "Jiang Ge case"), lawyer Hu Guiyun violated regulations and hyped up the case, and was given industry disciplinary sanctions of public condemnation.
Jiang Qiulian complained that Liu Nuanxi’s attorney was hyping up the case
On November 3, 2016, Jiang Qiulian's only daughter Jiang Ge was killed by Liu Nuanxi's ex-boyfriend Chen Shifeng in Tokyo, Japan.
Afterwards, Jiang Qiulian and Liu Nuanxi had a dispute over the cause of Jiang Ge's death, and Jiang Qiulian filed a lawsuit in court.
On January 10, 2022, the People's Court of Chengyang District, Qingdao City, Shandong Province made a first-instance judgment on the dispute over the right to life between the plaintiff Jiang Qiulian and the defendant Liu Nuanxi: The defendant Liu Nuanxi shall compensate the plaintiff Jiang Qiulian for various financial losses within ten days from the date of the judgment. He suffered a loss of 496,000 yuan and a mental damage consolation of 200,000 yuan, and was responsible for all case acceptance fees.
On December 30 of the same year, the Intermediate People's Court of Qingdao City, Shandong Province issued a second-instance judgment on the right to life dispute between Jiang Qiulian and Liu Nuanxi (formerly known as Liu Xin): Liu Nuanxi's appeal was rejected and the original judgment was upheld.
The "Disciplinary Decision" issued by the Beijing Lawyers Association on February 29, 2024 shows that on July 11, 2022, the complainant Jiang Qiulian filed a complaint with the Beijing Lawyers Association ( (hereinafter referred to as the "Beijing Lawyers Association") and the Beijing Haidian District Justice Bureau filed a complaint against lawyer Hu Guiyun of Beijing Antong Law Firm (hereinafter referred to as Antong Law Firm).
Jiang Qiulian alleged that lawyer Hu Guiyun acted as the attorney for the defendant Liu Nuanxi in the case of Jiang Qiulian v. Liu Nuanxi's right to life dispute.
After the verdict of the first instance of the case was pronounced, Liu Nuanxi lost the case.
During the second instance trial, Hu Guiyun, together with the client Liu Nuanxi, used the Internet to create hype and launched a series of malicious insults and slanderous attacks on Jiang Qiulian and the deceased Jiang Ge. They also incited thousands of supporters to attack the Qingdao Intermediate People's Court and the Qingdao Intermediate People's Court on the Internet. Jiang Qiulian's attorney attempted to mislead the public into questioning the unfairness of justice and influence the outcome of the second-instance verdict.
Hu Guiyun also illegally collected Jiang Qiulian's personal private information. What he did not only caused great mental harm to Jiang Qiulian, but also seriously damaged the reputation of the judicial organs and normal social order.
Jiang Qiulian requested that Hu Guiyun's violations of the Lawyers Law and Lawyers' Practice Standards be investigated, and that Hu Guiyun's lawyer's practicing certificate be revoked or other disciplinary sanctions be imposed.
Hu Guiyun's relevant opinions are also stated in the "Disciplinary Decision".
Hu Guiyun believes that in the case of representing Jiang Qiulian against Liu Nuanxi's right to life dispute, his Weibo account "Lawyer Hu Guiyun" never made any malicious insults and defamatory attacks on Jiang Qiulian and the deceased Jiang Ge, let alone instigating thousands of people. Supporters besieged the Qingdao Intermediate People's Court and Jiang Qiulian's attorney online.
Hu Guiyun believes that according to the law of development of things, when Jiang Qiulian and Huang Leping publish their opinions on the Internet, they will inevitably receive support but also opposition. Jiang Qiulian's spontaneous actions from netizens can even be said to be negative for Jiang Qiulian and Huang Leping's words and deeds. There is no justification for the controversy and rebuttal attributed to him.
He has never illegally collected Jiang Qiulian's personal information.
The "Disciplinary Decision" shows that on July 25, 2022, the Haidian Lawyers Association opened a case for investigation and added Antong Law Firm as the person under investigation.
Antong Law Firm and lawyer Hu Guiyun submitted a written defense and relevant evidence materials regarding the complaint.
On July 19, 2023, the Haidian Lawyers Association submitted its preliminary review opinions on the case to the Beijing Lawyers Association.
On October 23, 2023, the Beijing Lawyers Association held a hearing on this case.
The case has now been reviewed and concluded.
The Lawyers Association determined that the lawyer committed illegal speculation cases
The Beijing Lawyers Association believes that as far as this complaint is concerned, whether lawyer Hu Guiyun constitutes an illegal hype case depends on whether lawyer Hu Guiyun has repeatedly and continuously published, forwarded and commented inaccurately for the purpose of expanding his influence on public opinion. , non-comprehensive, exaggerated, misleading, false or speculative information (hereinafter collectively referred to as false information), leading to further opposition between the parties to the case and social sentiment, promoting the social spread of false information, and expanding the scope of false information social influence.
Based on the above standards, the Beijing Lawyers Association believes that lawyer Hu Guiyun subjectively was at fault for supporting illegal hype cases and objectively carried out illegal hype cases.
On January 24, 2022, a Weibo user posted a comment on lawyer Hu Guiyun's Weibo: "In the past, everyone believed in the law and there was no hype. Now maybe everyone can unite and post what Jiang did to Liu in the past five years every day. Province There are many melon-eating netizens who don’t understand anything and just read the title to curse people.” Lawyer Hu Guiyun replied under this Weibo comment: “This suggestion is very good and very important!”
The Beijing Lawyers Association believes that lawyer Hu Guiyun, as a professional legal practitioner, failed to remind and correct the above-mentioned limitations of the proposal when supporting the netizen's suggestion, and allowed and encouraged the emotional confrontation between netizens who supported Liu and those who supported Jiang.
Accordingly, the association believed that lawyer Hu Guiyun had subjective fault for supporting the hype of the case.
When rumors surfaced on the Internet that Jiang Ge lied about Liu Nuanxi’s pregnancy and asked Chen Shifeng for 100,000 yen, and whether Chen Shifeng’s intended murderer was Jiang Ge, on February 19, 2022, lawyer Hu Guiyun forwarded someone else’s Weibo post of similar rumors. Bohe commented: "In the past few days, several people have pushed me video reports about 100,000 yen, and they took the trouble to talk about 100,000 yen!"
The Beijing Lawyers Association believes that lawyer Hu Guiyun forwarded and commented on relevant rumors, which objectively caused false information related to the case to mislead readers’ curiosity and attention, encouraged the further dissemination of such false information, and expanded the scope of such false information. The social influence of information.
Lawyer Hu Guiyun's behavior constitutes a violation of the hype of the case.
When rumors of Jiang Qiulian's donation fraud appeared on the Internet, on February 20, 2022, lawyer Hu Guiyun forwarded someone else's Weibo: "Appeal: Everyone who has donated money to Jiang Qiulian, whether 30, 50, 1,000, 200, Or even 3,000 or 5,000, call the Jimo Public Security Bureau at 0532-110 or 0532-88512061 to report Jiang Moulian for fraud..." and commented: "Netizens consciously or unconsciously began to learn the law and use it, and strive to maintain social fairness and justice!"
The Beijing Lawyers Association believes that although lawyer Hu Guiyun did not directly claim that Jiang Qiulian fraudulently donated money, he made comments supporting and encouraging netizens to call the police without verifying whether Jiang Qiulian had indeed fraudulently donated money, which objectively led to untruths related to the parties involved in the case. The information arouses readers' curiosity and attention, encourages the further spread of such false information, and expands the social influence of such false information.
Lawyer Hu Guiyun's behavior constitutes a violation of the hype of the case.
When rumors and negative comments about Jiang Qiulian's marital status appeared on the Internet, lawyer Hu Guiyun posted on Weibo on February 25, 2022, with the content: "Thirty-five thousand people entered the live broadcast room. The men involved in the fourth marriage are so innocent. Ah, especially the rich village secretary surnamed Wang, and the son of unknown origin."
The Beijing Lawyers Association believes that although lawyer Hu Guiyun deleted the Weibo on his own two hours after posting it, it objectively contributed to the wider dissemination of false information that was detrimental to the parties involved in the case and expanded the social influence of such false information. , further aroused the curiosity and attention of netizens and readers, and inspired or enhanced readers’ negative evaluation of Jiang Qiulian.
Lawyer Hu Guiyun's behavior constitutes a violation of the hype of the case.
When rumors emerged on the Internet that Jiang Qiulian spent money to pay for the navy to hype up the case, on March 6, 2022, lawyer Hu Guiyun forwarded someone else’s Weibo and commented, “Jiang Ge’s case has been searched more than 300 times in the past five years, costing tens of millions of yuan. Well, this is going to be a blockage, does the platform agree?"
The Beijing Lawyers Association believes that although lawyer Hu Guiyun did not directly identify or claim that Jiang Qiulian spent money to buy navy troops, without verifying the authenticity of the rumors, the content of the comment strongly implied that he personally endorsed such rumors, which objectively encouraged the disinformation. The dissemination of false information has expanded the social influence of such false information and prompted readers to make negative comments about Jiang Qiulian.
To sum up, the Beijing Lawyers Association believes that lawyer Hu Guiyun subjectively was at fault for supporting the hype of the case, and objectively carried out the behavior of self-published, forwarded and positively commented on false information many times, which continued to contribute to the wider dissemination of such information and expanded the This has increased the social influence of such information, further aroused the curiosity and attention of netizens and readers, and inspired or enhanced readers' negative evaluations of the parties involved in the case.
Lawyers were publicly reprimanded and law firms were warned.
The Beijing Lawyers Association stated that lawyer Hu Guiyun constituted a case of illegal speculation and should be subject to industry disciplinary sanctions in accordance with the provisions of Article 45 of the "Implementation Rules for Punishment of Violations of Members of the Beijing Lawyers Association (Trial)".
The Beijing Lawyers Association also noted that lawyer Hu Guiyun once said, "We should not rush to comment on one person without knowing the full story. Such remarks may become a snowflake that overwhelms another person." Weibo comments, and also posted on Weibo citing Article 40 of the "Measures for the Administration of Lawyers' Practice", which stipulates that lawyers should make public remarks on cases in accordance with the law, objectively, fairly, and prudently... and must not distort the truth or obviously violate social order and good customs. , relevant professional standards for publishing malicious and defamatory remarks about others.
However, when negative rumors about Jiang Qiulian appeared on the Internet, lawyer Hu Guiyun not only failed to verify and clarify the rumors, but instead forwarded and spread these rumors and commented positively on them.
Regarding Jiang Qiulian's complaint that lawyer Hu Guiyun "insulted and slandered the other party and secretly investigated the other party's privacy," the Beijing Lawyers Association believed that lawyer Hu Guiyun violated the privacy of the other party and disparaged the other party's rights by disclosing false or misleading information. The social image constitutes a violation and is a constitutive factor in the illegal hype case. The Beijing Lawyers Association will combine other circumstances of lawyer Hu Guiyun's illegal hype case and make industry disciplinary sanctions after a comprehensive evaluation.
The Beijing Lawyers Association also pointed out that Antong Law Firm, where Lawyer Hu Guiyun worked, neither discovered nor believed that several of Hu Guiyun’s self-published, forwarded and commented comments on Weibo constituted illegal hype cases, and did not promptly correct Lawyer Hu Guiyun’s violations. The exchange shall bear corresponding responsibilities for neglect of management.
In accordance with the provisions of Article 39 of the "Rules for Punishment of Violations of Members of the Lawyers Association (Trial)", the Association will impose corresponding disciplinary sanctions on Antong Law Firm.
In summary, it is decided that: 1. Give lawyer Hu Guiyun the industry disciplinary sanction of public condemnation; 2. Give Beijing Antong Law Firm the industry disciplinary sanction of warning.
According to the procedures, if a member who has been punished by the Lawyers Association is dissatisfied with the disciplinary decision, he shall submit a written review application to the Special Working Committee for Review of Member Sanctions of the Lawyers Association within fifteen working days from the date of delivery of the disciplinary decision, and submit a review application in duplicate. application.