Việt Nam’s Legal ‘Revolution’: The Public-Private Battle for Justice 

“Having passed through a sea of mulberry fields,
What one witnesses is enough to break the heart.”

Under Resolution 24/2026/QH16, passed by the National Assembly on April 24, authorities will pilot a public lawyer system starting Oct. 1 across eight ministries, 10 provinces, and centrally administered cities. This development represents a significant change, effectively dividing Việt Nam’s legal profession into two distinct sectors: public and private.

This shift follows another “revolutionary” change on May 18, when commune chairpersons were granted the authority to revoke lawyers’ practicing licenses.

Although 2026 is not yet halfway through, Việt Nam’s legal community has already endured upheavals that alter the very foundations of the profession.

These developments extend beyond a single field and hold far-reaching implications for the nation’s legal landscape, ensuring that litigation and the struggle for justice can no longer be conducted in the traditional manner.

The Shifting Balance of Việt Nam’s Public Lawyer System 

The National Assembly recently passed a resolution formally piloting the public lawyer system. This resolution also represents progress towards institutionalizing Politburo Conclusion 23-KL/TW, which the authorities issued two weeks prior. [1] [2]

Although this plan has been in preparation for several years, the system in Việt Nam departs significantly from international norms, likely to serve the specific interests of public authorities.

Globally, public lawyers are generally divided into two categories. 

The first encompasses state-employed lawyers, such as prosecutors (a role filled in Việt Nam by the People’s Procuracies [3]), public defenders for the indigent, and government attorneys who protect state interests and defend administrative decisions. 

The second category features “public interest lawyers” who work independently for non-governmental organizations or pro bono clinics to promote social justice and human rights under international frameworks like the ICCPR, ICESCR, CEDAW, and CRC. [4] [5] [6]

Việt Nam’s new system, however, exclusively serves public authorities, aligning only with the government attorney role from the first category. This design addresses a mounting practical issue: a surge in administrative lawsuits and citizen complaints against the government.

In 2020, courts accepted 9,156 administrative cases, a number that rose to 10,831 in 2023 and reached 12,057 by 2024. This represents an approximate 31% increase over four years, with an average annual growth of 8%, primarily driven by disputes over land management, compensation, resettlement, and customs. [7]

Consequently, Section 3 of the Ministry of Justice’s proposal explicitly states that the pilot system was created to manage administrative cases, provide legal consultation for state projects, resolve international disputes, and handle citizen complaints. [8] 

Hence, the public lawyer corps is unequivocally designed to serve government needs.

Historically, Vietnamese authorities viewed the legal profession as oppositional to state power. Clause 4, Article 17 of the Law on Lawyers even dictates that civil servants cannot practice law, requiring those entering state service to surrender their licenses. [9] 

The new public lawyer system breaks this precedent. By establishing a class of lawyers dedicated to defending the state against citizens, the courtroom balance of power has shifted.

To enable this transition, authorities heavily amended existing legal documents, including professional principles in the Law on Lawyers and regulations for public employees.

As a result, independent lawyers, traditionally seen as the final defense for citizens against state power, now face an increasingly precarious position.

Private Lawyers are No Longer a Safe Refuge

Recent changes in the legal sector have severely impacted private lawyers. Despite operating outside the state payroll, their ability to fully advocate for citizens has been deeply compromised by two major developments: 

• Commune chairpersons have been granted the authority to revoke practicing licenses. [10]
• Lawyers are now required to report clients who are “preparing to commit crimes.” [11]

These changes leave private lawyers in a very uncertain position. It is difficult to imagine a lawyer confidently challenging a state entity in an administrative dispute when a local commune chairperson holds the power to abruptly end their career. 

Furthermore, this dynamic forces citizens to question whether they can still entrust their safety to a legal representative who is obligated to report them before a crime has even occurred.

If lawyers cannot safeguard their own professional rights, they fundamentally compromise their capacity to protect ordinary citizens.

The mandate from the Ministry of Public Security undermines the defense function by dismantling the trust and confidentiality essential to the lawyer-client relationship. When lawyers are legally bound to act as informants, clients will naturally refuse to disclose information honestly.

This concealment starves lawyers of the context needed to build an effective defense strategy, severely weakening legal protections.

There is also an increased risk that legal counsel will misjudge facts, overlook exculpatory evidence, and inadvertently contribute to a higher rate of wrongful convictions. The victims of this policy will not necessarily be organized criminals, but rather innocent individuals who rely on absolute transparency to receive adequate legal protection. 

When critical information is withheld, lawyers lose the ability to distinguish between those who are wrongfully implicated and those who are unintentionally involved, significantly diminishing their power to protect the innocent.

The State Mindset in a Lawyer’s Robe

Another notable feature of the public lawyer system is the provision that allows government officials, military officers, and police officers to become public lawyers. [12] 

This rule fundamentally alters traditional perceptions of the legal profession. By allowing the very instruments of state power to enter the ranks of public lawyers, the system reveals a distorted understanding of legal practice.

It establishes a professional dynamic wherein individuals wear a lawyer’s robe but retain the ingrained mindset of a state protector.

Yet, the legal profession requires a fundamental characteristic that other legal actors lack: the instinct to defend those whose rights are under threat.

While judges issue judgments, prosecutors pursue accusations, and investigators uncover facts, lawyers are expected to question power. They must scrutinize procedures and identify instances where state authority exceeds its lawful limits.

It is highly questionable whether individuals can seamlessly exchange these professional roles after being shaped by fundamentally different habits, identities, and responsibilities. This disparity extends beyond daily working methods and strikes at the core of professional ethics, ideals, and the fundamental spirit of legal practice.

---

In a remarkably short period of time, the legal profession has undergone transformations so profound that they have shaken its very foundations, yet those within the field often do not feel free to speak out.

As a result, the image of the fearless, eloquent lawyer—a beacon for first-year law students and the public alike—is rapidly fading into a distant dream.

When the law ceases to be a reliable foundation for justice, power fills the void, becoming the sole measure of what is right. In this environment, the strong are presumed correct by default.

History repeatedly demonstrates that systems lacking effective checks and balances inevitably follow a familiar, dangerous trajectory: initial smooth functioning gives way to a gradual abuse of power, ultimately ending in a total loss of control.

Under such circumstances, lawyers can no longer just be defenders of the accused; they must become the ultimate defenders of procedure. It is a procedure that separates a functioning rule-of-law state from a machine of pure, unbridled power. Once procedure is distorted, the question of right and wrong becomes irrelevant, eclipsed entirely by who possesses the authority to judge.

A system that reaches this point has fundamentally reached its limits.

---

Đan Thanh wrote this article in Vietnamese and published it in Luật Khoa Magazine on May 28, 2026. Đàm Vĩnh Hằng translated it into English for The Vietnamese Magazine.