近些年，中国商事诉讼业务蓬勃增长，中国商事诉讼律师们在整体专业水准与全球竞争力上也开始厚积薄发。

站在事实的肩膀上雄辩是诉讼律师们的战斗日常，而“事实的肩膀”能有多高，则考验着诉讼律师们对案件诸多细节精准的把握能力。在过去的一年中，《人民法院报》编辑部评选出了2019年度人民法院十大商事案件，与往年相比，涉及行业更广、金额更大，且案情更加复杂，预示着中国商事争议解决行业对诉讼律师的要求越来越高、挑战愈加严峻。但令人欣喜的是，在ALB收到的2020年ALB China十五佳诉讼律师申报表格中，我们看到一位又一位诉讼律师凭借扎实的法律基本功、丰富的行业知识、严密的逻辑思考、细节化的案情解读和高度专业的态度赢得了有利于客户的诉讼结果，多次在原本不利的情况下力挽狂澜，反败为胜。这些律师既是法律专家，又是行业能手，充分理解法律法规及其立法意图的同时紧密关注着行业前沿动态，秉承着深耕细作、精益求精的匠人精神，不断更新和扩充自身的“知识库”，走在行业最前端。我们在这些杰出的诉讼律师中评选出了2020年ALB China十五佳诉讼律师。

概况

今年上榜的15位诉讼律师们大多具有20年左右的从业经历，其争议解决领域包括海事海商、涉外争议解决、国际贸易、能源及离岸工程、保险金融、知识产权、私募基金、风险投资等。他们丰富的经验不仅使他们在多元化的争议解决领域中游刃有余，为客户提供优质法律服务，还让他们成为中国商事争议解决行业发展的推动者，加快了中国的法治建设进程。除了担任律师，他们中还有很多人具有检察院/法院、仲裁组织和法务的工作经验，这使得他们在参与案件的过程中能够站在多角度进行思考，对案情矛盾点的把握更加准确和全面，有效抓住并利用更多细节，为客户更好地解决争议和纠纷。同时，这些杰出的诉讼律师们还积极地投身学术，例如，北京市通商律师事务所的陈浮律师担任北京交通大学法学院联合导师和对外经济贸易大学硕士生校外导师；观韬中茂律师事务所的吕毅律师曾担任华东政法大学硕士生指导教师和同济大学公共管理硕士（专业学位）校外导师；德恒上海律师事务所的王军旗律师担任复旦大学法律硕士实务导师。他们凭借自身的丰富执业经验和学术造诣，悉心培养着新一代的诉讼律师。在法律援助等慈善活动方面，今年获奖的诉讼律师们也成果斐然，充分体现了杰出优秀的诉讼律师们专业素养与人文关怀兼具，在职业的舞台上发光，在社会的角落里发热。旁人眼中是针尖之舞般的难题，在这些杰出的诉讼律师应对起来却游刃有余。我们惊叹于他们在法庭上逆转不利局势的凯旋之姿，也好奇他们成功背后的制胜关键。我们采访了部分上榜律师，聆听他们分享对职业的理解、对企业的建议和对行业的展望。

职业哲学

君合律师事务所王钊律师认为，对诉讼律师来说，最重要的品质和精神是“心态平和、不争强好胜”。诉讼尽管是一个对抗性很强的业务，但诉讼最终的目的是要解决争议，为客户争取最大程度的合法利益，所以，诉讼律师的工作核心也应当围绕着这样的目的，维护和争取客户的利益，而不是非要和对手一争胜负、分出高低上下。王钊律师的职业哲学是“作专业的人，说专业的话”。他认为作为法律人，在执业中要敬畏法律和规则，要言之有理、言之有据；针对非自己专业领域问题，要么去请教专业的人，要么去学习和研究该专业问题，而不是凭感觉或者直觉去提供专业意见。

浩天信和律师事务所徐羽律师表示，作为诉讼律师，首先要具有鲜明的立场和观点；其次要具有在某个领域非常专业的知识水平；第三要具有非凡的社交与表达能力；最后要具有一定广度和深度的常识储备。执业以来，徐羽律师一直奉行“诉讼的最终目的就是说服法官”的职业哲学。他解释道：“律师代理一个案件，其实最终的目的就是说服法官在最大程度上支持己方主张。因此，说服法官的能力可以说是律师的核心能力。说服法官的基本条件就是要理解一场诉讼， 我认为诉讼的本质就是：原告从万千的已经发生过的事情中，讲出一个法律故事，提出他的要求，再论证这个故事是否真实存在，要求是否符合法律的规定，而被告则是极力否认这个故事或者否认其要求的合法性。而作为律师，就是要协助当事人从无数的事实中，找到相应的依据，争取让法官信服自己的观点。”

挑战虽多且艰，智慧更胜一筹

聊起“对于诉讼律师来说通常会遇到的挑战”这一话题时，竞天公诚律师事务所谢鹏律师说到，诉讼律师因为业务的特点，会接触到社会不同领域、不同行业的方方面面。随着社会的不断发展和进步，会不断出现新型的法律争议，而法律法规由于其滞后性，有时无法及时地加以明确规定。因此，出现较为超前且对律师来说比较陌生的争议问题，而现行法律法规又对此存在模糊点，是诉讼律师可能遇到的一大挑战。但即使是这样的难题，谢鹏律师也把握了相应的对策：一方面，围绕案情背后的争议焦点，分析争议产生的背景和原因，把握案件所涉法律问题的实质，寻找和挖掘判例所体现出的司法精神，结合学理解释对观点进行阐释；另一方面，在平时的工作中积累并学习各行业、各领域的专业知识，及时把握社会的热点、难点、痛点，着重提升解决区别于传统纠纷的新型争议的能力。拿谢鹏律师及其团队处理过的一个某知名国有央企下属汽配公司与某行业全国性工商联合会关于汽车配件展会名称的争议案件，当时争议的核心是一个已举办十余年的汽配展会名称使用权归属及由此产生的侵权损失赔偿问题，由于案涉主体都在业内具有较大影响力，且该展会每年可产生数千万元的收益，故法院对于本案的审理十分慎重，但展会的名称并不是商标、字号，亦不是某种专利、版权，不属于《商标法》、《专利法》这些法规规范的对象，因此这种名称到底具不具备专属性、如果具备应该适用什么法律，这是当时困扰法院的核心问题，并一度导致案件难以推进。当时谢鹏律师及其团队在对法律、司法解释及类似案例做了大量研究后向法院提出：基于证据可以看到该展会因为多年的举办，已具备知名度，其名称具有巨大的经济价值，其作为一个类似于商标的专属权利应该得到保护，而在法律适用方面，由于本案本质上可理解为一种不当的竞争及侵权行为，因此可适用《反不正当竞争法》进行审理。最终这些观点均被法院予以采纳，从而使本案得以顺利推进。

通商律师事务所陈浮律师分享了作为诉讼律师所面临的另一大挑战：在最短的时间内对案情进行透彻把握并制定出切实可行的诉讼策略。“对此，我们通常是团队作战，按照已经比较成熟的工作机制分工合作，充分发挥多位律师的聪明才智、能力与经验，一鼓作气完成任务。”陈浮律师说道。他和他的团队曾代理建银文化公司处理一个基于股权回购债务衍生的夫妻共债案。作为案件基础事实的投资交易结构很复杂，涉及拆除VIE架构、清退境外美元基金、拆除红筹架构回归A股等；案件的法律关系也比较复杂，涉及仲裁条款的扩张、股东回购责任认定、债务继承、夫妻共同债务的认定、债权人与债务人的举证责任分配等。接受委托后，由多位合伙人和律师组成的工作团队在短时间内迅速建立起来，集结了在包括境内外融资及上市和婚姻家事等多个领域执业的精英。团队迅速反应，捋事实，找证据，查法律，找案例，拟方案，做论证，第一时间吃透案情并拟定了诉讼策略，并最终得到了法院的支持。

在处于明显不利的状态下扭转局势，为客户争取利益则是王钊律师所分享的职业挑战。对此他表示：“在这种情形下，不能轻易放弃，而是通过进一步对事实细节的了解和对法律（包括法理和域外法律实践）深入研究，去寻找机会。” 王钊律师分享了他和团队代理被告参与的中国第一起纵向垄断民事诉讼案件。

原告指控被告在经销协议中约定的限定最低转售价格之条款是纵向垄断协议，而中国的《反垄断法》第14条确实禁止经营者与交易相对方达成限定最低转售价格的纵向垄断协议。在此情形下，似乎找不到可以反驳原告前述垄断协议主张的理由。但是，王钊律师及其团队并没有轻易放弃对该垄断协议主张的抗辩机会，从垄断协议的定义（即“排除、限制竞争的协议”），以及美国联邦最高法院最新案例对限定最低转售价格协议的认定从“本身违法原则”向“合理原则”转变的分析，提出了限定最低转售价格的协议本身并不构成违反《反垄断法》第14条的垄断协议，只有该协议“ 排除或限制了竞争”，才构成垄断协议。而在民事诉讼中，证明限定最低转售价格协议“排除或限制竞争”的举证责任在原告。当时最高人民法院有关审理垄断民事纠纷案件的司法解释还没有发布，也没有以往案例可以参考，但前述观点最终被法院所认可，而且也和后来最高院颁布的司法解释对于纵向垄断性协议构成要件规定相吻合。

对企业的建议

关于企业如何有效避免纠纷这一点，谢鹏律师指出：“企业在经营及交易过程中要时刻注意法律风险的把控，尤其是在签署相关协议等文件时，需特别关注该等文件的用词及条款表述。根据我的工作经历，常常会因为某个条款中的某个字词具有歧义或者约定不明而发生争议，甚至会因经常被忽略的合同通用条款的表述而产生纠纷。因此，建议企业在确定经营模式及进行民商事交易时，提前咨询相关的法律专业人员，从源头上控制风险。” 而如果已经发生纠纷，谢鹏律师建议：第一，企业在与争议相对方进行沟通及应答时要十分审慎，某些表述或字眼都可能被对方作为日后诉讼的证据，从而增加自身的败诉风险；其次，要尽早开始并随时注重留存和收集有利于自身的证据，为后续诉讼做好准备，特别是在企业自身作为被告的情况下；最后，要尽早咨询律师，在专业律师的指导下积极准备诉讼材料，搜集各种形式的诉讼证据，建议企业尽早咨询和引入专业人士，最大限度地保护自身的合法权益。

徐羽律师认为，一个企业，特别是大型企业应当以“发生纠纷的思维来避免纠纷”。也就是说，企业在进行一个特定活动或者交易时，首先应当假设将来是有可能发生纠纷的，然后所有的条款或者条件，都应当围绕如何避免纠纷，或者在纠纷中取得优势来进行。在这个基础上，企业还应当提前建立一套完备的风控机制，即在日常生产经营活动中，就伴随着专业法律工作者全程参与，通过建立一套有效的风控预警机制，可以使得大部分纠纷在形成的过程中被发现并被协调解决。在纠纷发生后，为最大限度的保护好自己的合法利益，应当积极应对。当前在国内，一些企业的管理者由于对法律的不熟悉对诉讼处于恐惧心理，往往对纠纷采取一种消极回避的态度。这种态度不仅会使得纠纷因得不到解决而不断扩大，还会在日后争议解决的过程中处于被动地位。

未来展望

王钊律师指出，总体而言，争议解决业务会出现增长化、国际化、多样化和专业化的趋势。随着整体经济形势发展放缓或者下滑，各类纠纷会出现上升趋势，随着大家法律意识的提高，这些纠纷很多会通过诉讼或者仲裁的方式解决，从而引发争议解决业务的进一步增长。此外，随着新的法律、法规的颁布和实施，新类型和专业型的争议解决业务会不断出现；随着中国对外贸易、投资以及一带一路的发展，以及境外仲裁机构在中国设立代表处以及可能在自贸区等特定区域审理案件，跨境的纠纷也会不断出现。

ALB China 2020 Top 15 Litigators

China’s commercial litigation business has experienced vigorous growth in recent years; and meanwhile, Chinese commercial litigation lawyers have enhanced their overall professional competence and global competitiveness through profound accumulation of knowledge and solid experiences.

For outstanding litigators, making compelling arguments based on clear facts is their job. The People’s Court Daily selected the top ten commercial cases in 2019, which, in comparison with the previous year, involved more industries, larger amounts and more complicated situations, indicating that China’s commercial disputes sector poses higher requirements and more severe challenges to litigators.

But we are excited to see that many applicants for ALB China 2020 Top 15 Litigators won favourable results for their clients by their solid legal skills, proficient industry knowledge, excellent logical reasoning skills, accurate interpretation of cases and highly professional attitude. These qualities enable them to stand out and win cases for clients even in unfavourable conditions. These lawyers are both legal experts and industry experts with the craftsmanship spirit. They have comprehensive understanding of the laws and regulations and their legislative intents, pay close attention to the industry’s cutting-edge trends, and constantly update and expand their “knowledge base”. We have now selected the winners of ALB China Top 15 Litigators this year.

OVERVIEW

Most of the winners on the list this year have about 20 years of working experience in the field of dispute resolution, practicing in the areas of maritime, foreign dispute resolution, international trade, energy and offshore engineering, insurance finance, intellectual property, private funds, and venture capital. They not only provide clients with high-quality legal services, but also play an important role in promoting the development of China’s commercial dispute resolution industry and accelerating the process of rule of law in China.

In addition to serving as lawyers, many of them have experiences of working at procuratorates, courts, or arbitration organizations, or serving as general counsels, which enable them to think from multiple perspectives when handling cases, have a more accurate and comprehensive understanding of the cases and serve clients better in dispute resolution. They are also actively engaged in academia: Chen Fu, a partner at Commerce & Finance Law Offices, serves as a tutor of the Law School of Beijing Jiaotong University and an off-campus tutor for master’s degree students of the University of International Business and Economics; Lloyd Lyu, a partner at Guantao Law Firm, once served as a master’s degree tutor of East China University of Political Science and Law and an off-campus tutor of master’s degree program of public administration of Tongji University; and Wang Junqi, a partner at DeHeng Law Offices, serves as a master’s degree tutor at Fudan University. By doing so, they train the new-generation litigators under their rich practice experience and academic accomplishments. Additionally, the winners also actively participate in charitable activities. These outstanding lawyers not only demonstrate excellence in their work but also show great commitments to social development. We want to congratulate them for their great achievements over the last year and praise them for their strong sense of social responsibilities.

We interviewed some of the lawyers on the list this year to find out the key to their success, and to hear their understanding of the legal profession, their advice to enterprises and their outlook on the industry.

PROFESSIONAL PHILOSOPHY

Wang Zhao, a partner at JunHe, believes that the most important quality for litigators is “remaining calm in all circumstances and not always being competitive and feisty.” Litigation involves many confrontations, but its goal is to resolve disputes and mean-while to maximize legitimate benefits for clients. The core of litigation is protecting and maximizing the interests of clients rather than competing with the opponents. Wang Zhao’s professional philosophy is “to be a professional and speak professionally.” Legal professionals must respect the laws and rules when practicing law, and should always stay in control of the case, make arguments based on logic and give advice based on facts, Wang Zhao says.

Xu Yu, a partner at Hylands Law Firm, says that litigators must have a clear position and viewpoint, be proficient in a certain field, have excellent social skills and be eloquent, and have very good common sense. Xu’s professional philosophy is “the ultimate goal of litigation is to convince the judge.”

“In legal proceedings, it’s essential for lawyers to convince the judge to support their claims to the greatest extent,” he says. “Plaintiffs bring charges against defendants and try to demonstrate the legality of their charges, and defendants try to deny the charges or the legality of the charge. Our job is to help our clients go through the numerous facts to find grounds supporting their claims, and then convince the judge.”

WISER WAYS

When it comes to “big challenges facing litigators,” Xie Peng, a partner at Jingtian & Gongcheng, says that since the clients are from various industries and backgrounds, litigators are exposed to all aspects of society and industries, the development and evolution of which keep bringing new types of legal disputes, but some of those disputes are not clearly defined or stipulated due to “law lag.” It poses a big challenge to litigators when faced with disputes of new types, for which the existing laws only have rather vague provisions, Xie says. When dealing with problems like this, Xie says that on one hand, they analyse the background and causes of the dispute in order to grasp the substantial legal issues involved, find out the judicial spirit of the precedent, and then explain the views in combination with academic interpretations; on the other hand, they keep expanding their knowledge of different industries and fields, and keep abreast of hotspots in the society, thus improving the capability to resolve new types of disputes.  Xie shares with us a case he and his team worked regarding a dispute between a famous state-owned central enterprise auto parts company and a national federation of industry and commerce about the name of auto parts exhibition. The core of the dispute was the ownership of the right to use the name of the exhibition, which had been held for more than ten years, and the resulting infringement loss compensation. Since the subjects involved in the case have great influence in the industry, and the exhibition could generate tens of millions of yuan in revenue every year, the court was very cautious about the trial. However, the name of the exhibition was not a trademark or a shop name, nor was it a patent or copyright. It did not belong to the object of the trademark law or patent law. Therefore, whether such a name was exclusive or not, and if so, what law should be applied, were the core issues that troubled the court, causing the difficulty in advancing the case. Xie and his team, after a lot of research on law, judicial interpretation and similar cases, proposed to the court that based on the evidence, it could be seen that this exhibition had gained popularity because of its long history and great economic value. As an exclusive right like a trademark, it should be protected. In terms of the application of law, since the case could be understood as an improper competition and infringement, in essence, the anti-unfair competition law could be applied to the trial. These views were adopted by the court, and the case proceeded smoothly.

Chen of Commerce & Finance Law Offices pointed out another big challenge: to have a thorough understanding of the case and develop a practical litigation strategy within the shortest time frame. “We usually work in teams according to division of responsibilities and give full play to the capabilities of different lawyers, thereby accomplishing the task at an expedited pace,” Chen says.

Chen and his team represented a CCB cultural company in a joint debt case which was based on equity buyback debt. The structure of the investment transaction in the case was very complicated, involving VIE structure, overseas USD funds, and removal of the red-chip structure to return to A shares; and the legal relationships in the case were also complex, which included the expansion of arbitration clauses and the determination of shareholder repurchase responsibility, debt inheritance, identification of joint debt, and distribution of burden of proof between the creditor and debtor.

After accepting the entrustment, a team composed of partners and attorneys was quickly established within a short time, gathering elites in various fields including domestic and foreign financing and listing, and marriage and family affairs. The team responded quickly, straightened out the facts, found evidence, looked up the laws, prepared plans, made demonstrations, and worked out litigation strategies. Their claim was finally upheld by the court.

In Wang Zhao’s opinion, the professional challenge is how to turn the situation around in an unfavourable condition, to protect the legitimate rights and interests of the client. “Under these circumstances, we should not give up easily, instead, we should seek opportunities to protect our clients through an in-depth study of laws and further exploration of the details of the facts,” Wang Zhao says. He then shared with us the first vertical monopoly civil litigation case in China, in which he and his team represented the defendant.

The plaintiff accused the defendant of setting a minimum resale price in the distribution agreement, which constituted a vertical monopoly agreement. It is provided for in Article 14 of the Anti-Monopoly Law of China that it prohibits the operator and the counterparty from entering into a vertical monopoly agreement that sets the minimum price at which a reseller can sell the product. Therefore, it seems that there was no reason to refute the plaintiff’s claim. But Wang Zhao and his team did not easily give up. They argued that the definition of a monopoly agreement is an agreement that excludes or restricts competition; furthermore, in a recent case, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to demote resale-price-maintenance antitrust cases to the rule-of-reason standard, thus an agreement that stipulates the minimum resale price does not constitute the violation of Article 14 of the Anti-monopoly Law; and it constitutes a monopoly agreement only if it “excludes or restricts competition.” In a civil lawsuit, the plaintiff bringing such a claim must prove there exists the “exclusion or restriction of competition.” Their views were accepted by the court. What’s more exciting is that their views are line with the provisions of the judicial interpretation issued by the Supreme People’s Court later concerning the elements of vertical monopoly agreements.

ADVICE TO COMPANIES

Regarding how companies can effectively avoid disputes, Xie points out: “Enterprises should always pay attention to stay control of legal risks in the operation and transaction process, especially when signing documents such as relevant agreements. It is important to pay close attention to the language used in the contract. In my experience, disputes often arise because a word or expression used in a clause is ambiguous, and sometimes disputes arise from the expression of the general clauses of the contract which are often neglected. It is recommended that an enterprise should consult relevant legal professionals before determining its business model or conducting trans-actions, to control risks from the beginning.”

If a dispute is already raised, an enterprise should be very careful of words it uses or the statements it makes when communicating with the opposite party in the dispute, since certain words or expressions might be used as evidence against them, which might increase the chance of causing the enterprise to lose a case, Xie warns. The enterprise should start gathering and keeping evidence in favour of itself as early as possible, especially if the enterprise is the defendant; and the enterprise should consult lawyers the earliest possible, and start preparing litigation materials under the guidance of professionals, to protect its legal rights and interests to the maximum extent, he advises.

According to Xu, an enterprise, especially a large enterprise, should “avoid disputes by thinking as there will be.” In other words, when a company conducts a specific activity or transaction, it should first assume that disputes may arise in the future, and all terms or conditions outlined in the contract or agreement should be based on how to avoid disputes, or turn the dispute to its advantage. On this basis, the enterprise should establish a complete set of risk control mechanism in advance to protect its legitimate rights and interests to the greatest extent if a dispute arises. Enterprises should also involve legal professionals in their day-to-day operation activities, who can help them discover and resolve disputes at the earliest stage. Taking an active attitude towards disputes and adopting effective measures will help gain advantage in the future dispute settlement if disputes arise.

LOOKING FORWARD

In general, there will be a higher demand for dispute resolution services, and the dispute resolution business will become more and more internationalized, diversified and specialized, Wang Zhao predicts. As the overall economic growth slows down or declines, there will be more disputes of different types. However, many of these disputes will be resolved through litigation or arbitration, which will lead to further growth of dispute resolution business. With the introduction of new laws and regulations, new types of disputes will continue to emerge. And as China sees rapid development in foreign trade, investment, and the Belt and Road Initiative related sectors, more and more overseas arbitration institutions set up their representative offices in China, and cases could be heard in free trade zones, there will be more demands for solving cross-border disputes, Wang Zhao says.

To contact the editorial team, please email ALBEditor@thomsonreuters.com.