A股上市依旧受阻的背景下，中国企业继续积极寻求赴美上市。与此同时，企业家不断更新对美国上市的期待，这也引发了法律中介服务版图的变化。

• 2024年共有64支中概股完成美国上市，另有超百家企业在备案或排队之中
• 越来越多新品牌律所开始担任中概股上市的中国律师角色

过去一年的中美关系虽然张力持续，但交易领域却呈现出一番不同的图景：根据多家机构的统计数据，2024是中概股赴美上市的创纪录一年，共录得64宗交易；2025年1月，继续有12支中概股完成美国上市，占美国市场当月新股数量的41%。

虽然交易活跃，但公众对近期的美股上市市场感知却不算深刻，这可能因为大多数美股上市的融资额都维持在中低区间。以2024年为例，除了吸引眼球的亚玛芬体育、极氪、小马智行上市外，超50%的中概股募资额仅在500-1000万美元之间，并未能激起太多关注浪花。

与此同时，另一个有趣的现象是，为中概股提供上市服务的法律中介机构日益多元，不仅机构数量逐渐增多，且出现了越来越多的中小型律所、新品牌律所的身影。

以中国律师为例，参与项目数量上，来自无锡的江苏君金律师事务所、总部位于深圳的华商律师事务所位列前五，君金在2024年完成了4个项目、已公开备案项目5个；华商同样完成4单，已公开备案项目1个。

目前公开的备案项目至少涉及到30家不同的中国律所，其中道可特律师事务所的后发之力值得关注：该所虽然去年完成了1单美股上市，但公开备案项目为4个。

美国律师方面，市场同样分化，且参与项目数量最多的是几家中小型规模律所：律师人数只有不到40人的纽约律所Hunter Taubman Fischer & Li（HTFL，翰博文）参与了12宗交易；另一家创立于2006年的纽约所Ortoli Rosenstadt（欧洛）则参与了10宗交易。

新增驱动因素

张婷律师是道可特律师事务所国际业务的负责人，也是道可特美股上市业务背后的主要“推手”。2024年张律师带领团队完成了上海办公用品租赁商君长数码的纳斯达克上市项目，“虽然数量只有一个，但比较有代表性：是采用VIE架构赴美国上市的项目中，第一家取得中国证监会备案核准通知书的公司”，张律师说。

正在进行中的项目，已公开数量为4个，不过张律师透露，还有不少尚未披露的项目，“整体管线情况是不错的”。

谈到背后的驱动因素，张律师指出发行人的融资诉求、投资人的退出需要，以及A股上市通道较为阻塞仍旧是主因，吸引更多中国企业——甚至中小型企业到成熟的美国市场寻找上市机会。

另一层驱动原因则更新、更隐蔽。“越来越多中国企业寻求美国上市，不仅是出于企业融资或发展的需要，也源自企业家个人跨境配置资产的需求。通过红筹结构，企业家的部分资产能够转化为境外股票或资产。”

张律师告诉ALB，信托是道可特的传统优势领域，“我们做了许多中概股实控人的信托业务”，正是在这个过程中，团队发现了企业家本人的跨境安排诉求。和传统家族财富律师提供的服务相比，“他们主要会从继承、债务等角度进行信托安排，但资本市场律师能够把信托和企业上市做链接，例如根据上市披露要求规划股权结构等”。

“最近几年在美股上市业务宣传中，我们也在强化对实控人服务的这种差异性。”张律师说，这一策略也确实帮助道可特获得了十分可观的市场份额。

愈发分化的市场

谈到服务于美股上市的法律中介机构的日益多元性，张婷律师坦言她也有着类似观察。不过她指出，其中的根本原因在于美股上市的特殊性，“美股采取披露制度，难度相对较低；此外从工作量角度，和需要长期驻场、投入大量人力的A股上市不同，律师的主要工作在于方案架构的设计”。

此外，如果说A股上市中，市场对律所品牌的认可度更高，“美国证监会、美国律师反而更认可律师的个人品牌”。张律师坦言，其实从事美股上市的律师“圈子很小”，虽然不断有中小型律所品牌进入市场，但背后的合伙人并没有太多变化，可以说是伴随合伙人的流动，市场才显得丰富起来——张律师自己就是一例：她2005年左右就在某大所从事境外上市业务，加盟道可特后，帮助新品牌打造了美股上市服务能力。

与之相对，长期服务于中概股——尤其中小型中概股上市的美国律所“圈子也不大，比如我们现在合作比较多的美国律所，我和对方律师在2006年就认识了，只不过当时大家还是普通律师，现在都逐渐成长为团队负责人”。

此外，这些美国律所在收费模式、沟通便利度上各有特色，成为许多中概股企业的go-to-firm。“他们比较了解中国人的思路。例如在收费上，大所往往采纳计时收费、没有封顶，中国客户接受不了，但这些律所可以提供封顶报价。”张律师说。有些律所还拥有不少中国背景的律师，能够节省翻译成本、避免沟通障碍——例如翰博文的亚洲业务负责人李莹律师曾在中伦纽约办公室任职，该所其他合伙人及律师中至少还有17位中国人。

实际上这正是健康市场的表现：企业能够根据自身体量、成本考量找到相对应体量的服务律所。此外在投行、会计师事务所方面，可以看到为中概股提供服务的也并非顶流机构，例如R.F. Lafferty & Co.、Revere Securities、Wei, Wei & Co.，以及Marcum Asia CPAs。

当然，也有律所能够凭借聚焦的策略定位快速实现异军突起，上文提到过的江苏君金所就是个例子。根据该所去年6月发布的一篇文章，“过去12个月，君金完成了10宗中概股IPO的备案工作——占据了中国证监会境外上市备案新规生效以来15%的市场份额”。

只有11名律师的君金所采取的是“地域战略”，即主要在律所所在的无锡市展开市场开拓——上述提及的10宗交易中有4宗来自无锡本地企业。由于无锡民营企业较为活跃，且当地政府支持企业根据自身需求推动境外上市，相信未来将创造出更多业务机会。此外，早在2017年，君金就与美国所Ortoli签署了战略合作协议，“为更多的中国客户投资美国提供专业服务”。

市场持续变化

虽然上述变化强化了美股上市市场的竞争程度，此外中概股融资额普遍有限，但张婷律师坦言，这并没有过多影响上市项目中的收费，“律师收费并非和企业的募资额挂钩，无论中型或小型项目，在工作量类似的前提下，律师费几乎是类似的”。

不过对企业来说，这意味着美股上市的成本的确在升高。张律师指出，除了以上谈及的个人资产配置需求，中国企业家如今对上市的理解也在不断演变。“企业家越来越认可企业上市是个长远规划，而非一次性事件。此外美股的再融资相对容易，上市一两个月后就可以发行可转债、进行二次融资。因此企业家不会再仅仅考虑首发费用是否划算的问题。”

这也意味着未来企业将持续产生再融资、并购、整合资产等需求，“每一步都伴随相应的法律服务”，能够给已经入局美股上市业务的中国律所带来持续不断的业务机会。

此外，在美股上市项目中，张律师也越来越感受到中国律师重要性的提升——这也是市场机会得以膨胀的原因之一。“中国证监会备案新规出台以前，尤其券商中国律师起到的作用相对有限。但‘新规’实际上形成了长臂管辖，要求注册在美国的券商向中国证监会出具承诺函，券商因此会更重视中国法服务。”

不过，伴随中国证监会的备案要求趋严，张律师预期未来美股上市市场的集中度也有可能增加，“因为中国证监会对于律所规模、品牌知名度是有一定要求的”。

因此，当下可能是中国律所抓紧窗口时机，尽快借助境外上市打造更强律所品牌的窗口期。“IPO项目能够公开宣传，且自带光环，能够有效提升律所的品牌知名度；此外国际业务也是扩宽品牌的重要领域——市场上所有优秀的律所品牌都有强劲的国际业务。”张律师指出，“让境外IPO业务和律所品牌发展相辅相成，这一直是道可特的愿景。”

Beyond Traditional Listings

Amid persistent obstacles to A-share listings, Chinese companies remain eager to go public in the U.S. At the same time, entrepreneurs are refining their expectations for U.S. listings, reshaping the landscape of legal advisory services.

• In 2024, a total of 64 Chinese companies completed their U.S. IPOs, with over 100 more in the pipeline. 
• A growing number of new firm brands are stepping in as Chinese counsel for these listings. 

Despite ongoing strains in U.S.-China relations over the past year, deal activity has painted a different picture. According to multiple industry reports, 2024 was a record-breaking year for Chinese IPOs in the U.S., with 64 listings completed. The momentum carried into 2025, as January alone saw 12 Chinese companies debut on U.S. exchanges, accounting for 41 percent of all IPOs in the U.S. market that month.

While listing activity remains robust, public perception of the U.S. IPO market has been relatively muted, largely due to the modest fundraising scale of most deals. In 2024, aside from high-profile IPOs such as Amer Sports, Zeekr, and Pony.ai, over 50 percent of Chinese listings raised only $5 million to $10 million, failing to generate significant market buzz.

At the same time, an intriguing shift is unfolding in the legal advisory space. The roster of law firms involved in Chinese IPOs is becoming increasingly diverse, with a rising number of small and regional firms entering the market.

For Chinese counsel, Wuxi-based Jiangsu Junjin Law Firm and Shenzhen-based China Commercial Law Firm ranked among the top five in deal volume. Junjin completed four IPO projects in 2024 and has five more in the pipeline, while China Commercial also handled four deals, with one additional public filing.

In total, at least 30 different Chinese law firms are currently engaged in IPO-related filings. Notably, Beijing-based Docvit Law Firm is emerging as a rising player—despite handling only one U.S. IPO last year, it has already filed for four upcoming listings.

On the U.S. side, the legal market is also diversified, with mid-sized firms dominating Chinese IPO deals. New York-based Hunter Taubman Fischer & Li (HTFL), a firm with fewer than 40 attorneys, participated in 12 transactions in 2024. Another New York firm, Ortoli Rosenstadt, founded in 2006, was involved in 10 deals over the same period.

New driving forces

Zhang Ting, head of international business at Docvit Law Firm, is a key figure behind the firm’s expansion into U.S. IPO advisory. In 2024, Zhang led her team in completing the Nasdaq listing of Eshallgo Inc, a Shanghai-based office equipment leasing company. “Although it was just one deal, it was highly representative—it was the first company using a VIE structure to secure approval from the China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) before listing in the U.S.,” Zhang notes.

Docvit currently has four publicly disclosed U.S. IPO projects in progress, but Zhang reveals that many more remain under wraps. “Our overall pipeline looks strong,” she says.

Discussing the factors driving this wave of listings, Zhang points to the issuers’ financing needs, investors’ exit strategies, and continued bottlenecks in the A-share listing process as the primary reasons pushing more Chinese firms — including small and mid-sized ones — to seek IPOs in the well-established U.S. market.

However, another, less obvious driver is also at play. “An increasing number of Chinese entrepreneurs are looking to list in the U.S. not just for corporate financing or expansion, but also for personal cross-border asset allocation,” Zhang explains. “Through red-chip structures, some of their assets can be converted into overseas stocks or holdings.”

Trust services have long been a core strength of Docvit. “We’ve handled numerous trust arrangements for controlling shareholders of U.S.-listed Chinese companies,” Zhang tells ALB. Through this work, her team identified a rising demand for personal cross-border asset planning among entrepreneurs. Compared to traditional family wealth lawyers, who focus on estate planning and debt protection, capital markets lawyers can integrate trust structures with IPO planning, such as structuring shareholdings in line with disclosure requirements.

“In recent years, we’ve emphasised this unique aspect of our services in marketing our U.S. IPO practice,” says Zhang. “This strategy has helped Docvit secure a significant share of the market.”

Growing divergence

As the landscape of legal advisory firms serving U.S. IPOs continues to diversify, Zhang acknowledges a similar trend. However, she attributes this shift primarily to the unique nature of U.S. listings. “The U.S. market follows a disclosure-based regulatory framework, making the process relatively less demanding. Unlike A-share IPOs, which require lawyers to be deeply involved on-site for extended periods, the primary role of legal counsel in U.S. listings is to design the transaction structure,” she explains.

Another key distinction lies in market recognition. “While law firm brand carries significant weight in A-share IPOs, the U.S. SEC and attorneys tend to place more emphasis on individual lawyers’ reputations,” Zhang notes. In reality, the circle of lawyers specialising in U.S. listings is quite small. While new mid-sized and boutique firms continue to enter the market, the key partners behind them remain largely unchanged. This fluidity is primarily driven by the movement of individual practitioners. Zhang herself exemplifies this trend—having started her career in overseas listings at a major firm around 2005, she later joined Docvit, helping establish its U.S. IPO practice under a new brand.

The same dynamic applies to U.S. law firms that have long served Chinese issuers, particularly small and mid-cap Chinese IPOs. “The circle is tightknit. Some of the U.S. attorneys we frequently collaborate with today are people I first met back in 2006, when we were all junior lawyers. Over time, we have grown into team leaders,” Zhang reflects.

These U.S. firms have also developed distinctive pricing models and communication styles, making them the preferred choice for many Chinese issuers. “They understand the mindset of Chinese clients. Large firms typically charge by the hour with no fee cap, which is difficult for Chinese companies to accept. In contrast, these mid-sized firms offer capped pricing,” Zhang explains. Some firms also employ lawyers with Chinese backgrounds, reducing translation costs and minimising communication barriers. For example, Ying Li, head of Asian business at HTFL, previously worked at Zhong Lun’s New York office. HTFL’s overall team includes at least 17 other Chinese-origin lawyers.

This market structure in fact reflects a healthy level of segmentation, as companies can choose legal service providers that align with their scale and budget. The same pattern is evident among investment banks and accounting firms serving Chinese issuers, where top-tier institutions are not necessarily dominant players. Notable service providers include R.F. Lafferty & Co, Revere Securities, Wei, Wei & Co, and Marcum Asia CPAs.

Some law firms have also carved out a niche through targeted strategies. Jiangsu Junjin Law Firm, mentioned earlier, is one such case. According to an article published by the firm in June 2024, “Over the past 12 months, Junjin completed filings for 10 Chinese IPOs—securing a 15 percent market share under the new CSRC offshore listing regulations.”

With just 11 lawyers, Junjin has adopted a “regional strategy,” focusing its market expansion within Wuxi, where the firm is based. Of the 10 IPOs it handled, four were for Wuxi-based companies. Given the city’s dynamic private sector and supportive government policies for offshore listings, Junjin anticipates further growth opportunities. Additionally, the firm established a strategic partnership with one top player from the U.S. side - Ortoli Rosenstadt - as early as 2017, “aiming to provide professional services for more Chinese clients investing in the U.S.”

Evolving mindset

While the increasing competition in U.S. IPO services and the generally modest fundraising amounts of Chinese listings might suggest cost pressure, Zhang notes that legal fees remain largely unaffected. “Lawyers' fees are not directly tied to a company’s fundraising amount. Whether it’s a mid-sized or small-scale IPO, as long as the workload is similar, the legal fees are almost the same,” she says.

For issuers, however, this translates into rising costs for a U.S. listing. Beyond the legal and financial considerations, Zhang points to a shift in how Chinese entrepreneurs perceive IPOs. “More and more business owners now see going public as a long-term strategy rather than a one-time event. Additionally, follow-on financing is relatively easy in the U.S. —companies can issue convertible bonds or conduct secondary offerings within just a couple of months after listing. As a result, entrepreneurs are no longer just focused on the cost-effectiveness of the initial IPO.”

This evolving mindset means that demand for refinancing, M&A, and asset consolidation will continue to grow with each step requiring legal services, presenting sustained business opportunities for Chinese law firms already active in the U.S. IPO market.

Another emerging trend is the increasing role of Chinese lawyers in U.S. IPOs. “Before the new CSRC filing regulations, the role of Chinese counsel — especially for underwriters —was relatively limited. But with the new rules introducing long-arm jurisdiction, U.S.-registered underwriters are now required to submit a commitment letter to the CSRC. As a result, they place much greater emphasis on Chinese legal services,” Zhang explains.

However, as CSRC filing requirements are becoming more stringent, Zhang predicts that market concentration may increase. “The CSRC has certain expectations regarding law firms’ size and brand reputation, which could lead to a more consolidated market on the PRC counsel side.”

This, in turn, presents a critical window of opportunity for Chinese law firms to leverage overseas listings to enhance their branding. “IPO projects provide public visibility and carry a halo effect, making them a powerful tool for law firms to build brand recognition. Additionally, a strong international practice is a hallmark of all leading law firms,” Zhang emphasises.