Become a Member for $9.99/month

A draft regulation affecting the independence of the legal profession drew “no comment” from the Vietnam Bar Federation until a month after it was issued; when the federation finally weighed in, the Ministry of Justice dismissed its concerns as “unfounded,” sparking outrage among legal practitioners.

The latest: On the evening of May 21, lawyers circulated a document on social media known as Report No. 532, which was sent by the Justice Ministry to the government concerning the Vietnam Bar Federation’s petition over Decree 109.

The document, signed on May 14, stated that the federation’s recommendations were “groundless” and called for the continued implementation of the provisions in Decree 109.

The Justice Ministry emphasized that the federation had “no comment on the above-mentioned provision” throughout the drafting and consultation process for the decree.

The details: According to Report 532, the Justice Ministry argued that the commune level is “the level of government closest to the people.” Therefore, if “authority is not assigned to the chair of the commune-level People’s Committee,” it would “fail to ensure the principle of promptly handling violations and preventing violations, thereby weakening the effectiveness of state management.”

In addition, the ministry stated that commune-level People’s Committee chairs already had the authority to “suspend the use of licenses and practicing certificates for a fixed period or suspend operations for a fixed period” under previous regulations. Therefore, Decree 109 is merely “a continuation” of existing rules.

The Justice Ministry said it was necessary to distinguish between “the temporary suspension of the right to use a lawyer’s practicing certificate” and “the revocation of a lawyer’s practicing certificate.” The ministry argued that the suspension is only “temporary” and that commune-level chairs are not “given the authority to inspect legal practice.”

The Justice Ministry’s response has become a subject of heated debate. Legal practitioners appear divided into several camps: those criticizing the Justice Ministry, those criticizing the Vietnam Bar Federation, and those criticizing both.

Atty. Nguyễn Tuyết asked: “What did the Vietnam Bar Federation and the Justice Ministry say and do during the consultation process for the draft Decree 109? How could such a glaring issue have been accepted by both this agency and this organization?”

Atty. Đặng Thúy Huyền criticized the federation for remaining silent throughout the drafting process. She argued: “The most controversial point […] is that the Justice Ministry affirmed that throughout the development of Decree 109/2026/NĐ-CP, the Vietnam Bar Federation had been sent the consultation dossier, invited to attend workshops, and participated in meetings of the appraisal council, but raised ‘no objection’ to this provision. In other words, only after the decree had been signed and issued, and after lawyers began reacting strongly, did a petition appear requesting a ‘temporary suspension.’ This is the point that has led many lawyers to raise questions.”

Huyền also emphasized: “A socio-professional organization that seeks to protect lawyers cannot speak up only after the fact. […] It needs a proactive, strong, and substantive policy-review mechanism from the very beginning. […] This may be one of the rare situations in which silence during the draft consultation process later becomes a legal disadvantage.”

Atty. Trần Đại Lâm, one of the first lawyers to submit a petition regarding the decree, wrote on Facebook that “what is worth reflecting on is that among more than 24,000 practicing lawyers, very few have publicly spoken up, submitted petitions, or offered criticism of a regulation that could directly affect their right to practice. That is a paradox worth pondering.” He said: “If even lawyers are reluctant to speak up to defend their lawful right to practice, it is difficult to expect society to view the legal profession as an independent and forceful source of criticism.”

Atty. Hoàng Hà expressed his frustration: “It is truly sad for the legal profession. […] The Justice Ministry affirmed that the Vietnam Bar Federation’s petition had no basis. So the first-instance judgment is upheld.”

In the comments under Hoàng Hà’s post, many other lawyers also expressed dismay: “I don’t know what else to say,” and “In the end, we lawyers still cannot protect ourselves.”

Many other lawyers chose simply to share the report, quoting controversial passages from the Justice Ministry’s document without adding further comment or analysis.

According to the contents of the circulated Report 532, the document was signed by the Justice Ministry on May 14. However, the document could not be found on the ministry’s website. The circulated version appears to be a photograph of a paper file.

The background: Decree 109, which allows commune-level People’s Committee chairs to suspend the use of lawyers’ practicing certificates, was issued on April 1, 2026.

Following its issuance, the matter began attracting wider attention and sparking anger among legal practitioners. On May 7, more than one month after the decree was issued, the Vietnam Bar Federation sent a document to the government and the Central Committee of the Vietnam Fatherland Front “requesting consideration of a temporary suspension of several provisions in Decree 109/2026.”

Despite opposition from legal practitioners and the Vietnam Bar Federation’s petition, Decree 109 officially took effect on May 18 without any changes.

Why it matters: A draft legal document affecting the independence of the legal profession drew “no comment” from the Vietnam Bar Federation until one month after it was issued.

When the federation finally voiced its objections to the controversial provision allowing local officials to suspend legal practicing certificates, the Justice Ministry summarily dismissed them as “groundless.”

The situation has left Vietnamese lawyers outraged and raises critical questions about whether the legal profession can rely on its own socio-professional organizations to proactively protect its independence.

Hoàng Nam wrote this article in Vietnamese and published it in Luật Khoa Magazine on May 22, 2026. The Vietnamese Magazine has the copyrights of the English translation.

Justice Ministry Says Vietnam Bar Federation Had ‘No Comment’ On Decree 109 Draft

RELATED POSTS

Việt Nam Court Electronics Ban: Another Surprise Blow for Vietnamese Lawyers

Lawyers in Việt Nam Resort to Pen and Paper Under Circular 12

Việt Nam’s Supreme Court Bans Laptops, Lawyers Push Back Against New Courtroom Rules

Hoàng Nam

Related Posts

Threatened by Police, Cut From the News: Vĩnh Hưng Residents Join Việt Nam’s Growing Fight to Keep Land From Developers

Nghệ An Bans Residents From Filming or Recording at 13 Land Seizure Sites for Vinh–Thanh Thủy Expressway Project

Hà Nội Television Accused of Censoring Vĩnh Hưng Residents Over Sun Group Project

Hà Nội Sets Dec. 8 Land Clearance Deadline for Ba Vì Safari Project, Affected Residents Never Consulted

Đà Nẵng Police Mock Public Sympathy Toward Việt Nam Death Row Defendant

Việt Nam Culture Minister’s Speech Removed After Unpassed Law Announcement

Tiêu Nguyễn Bảo Ngọc’s Release Tests Hà Nội’s Citizen Protection as Case Dominates News Last Week

2026 Shangri-La Dialogue: Việt Nam Steps Onto a Larger Strategic Stage

OPINIONS

Southern Vietnamese Changed After 1975. Loving the Old Words Doesn’t Mean Fighting the New Ones.

Four Journalists Are in Prison in Việt Nam. Their Mother, Sister, and Wives Demand Their Release

Canada and the West Cannot Ignore Việt Nam’s Human Rights Record

POPULAR STORIES

Hà Nội ‘Justice Tree’: Social Media Users Demand Investigation into Former Lawmaker Nguyễn Sỹ Cương

Việt Nam Culture Ministry Blocks Threads Posts Accusing Nguyễn Sỹ Cương

Religion Bulletin – April 2026 – Việt Nam Passes Amended Religion Law As Authorities Prosecute Four Independent Protestants

Post-1975 Tragedy: The Grim Reality of Life in Vietnam’s Re-education Camps

Former Deputy Nguyễn Sỹ Cương Trends on Vietnamese Social Media Following Rap Album Censorship