After a rule allowing commune chairpersons to revoke professional licenses, lawyers in Việt Nam now face another restriction: they may soon be limited to bringing only paper case files—often running tens of thousands of pages—into courtrooms.
The Latest: On May 30, the Supreme People’s Court issued Circular No. 12/2026/TT-TANDTC, establishing new courtroom rules governing decorum as well as audio and video recording during trials. The circular bars lawyers and all trial participants from bringing electronic devices or making audio or video recordings unless authorized by the presiding judge.
- The regulation takes effect on Aug. 1, 2026.
The Details: Under the circular, lawyers and other participants must obtain the presiding judge’s permission before using any electronic device inside a courtroom.
- However, the regulation does not specify the circumstances under which such permission may be granted.
- This ambiguity also applies to audio recording, video recording, and livestreaming.
- Trial participants may only record during the opening of proceedings, the announcement of the judgment, and the reading of court decisions.
- Recording or livestreaming at any other stage requires the presiding judge’s approval, again with no criteria provided to explain when such permission should be granted.
Criticism from the Legal Community: Circular No. 12 has triggered widespread criticism from the legal community, with most objections focusing on its impact on courtroom advocacy and judicial transparency.
Speaking to Luật Khoa Magazine, an anonymous legal expert (who requested anonymity for safety reasons) noted that the circular may have been introduced for three reasons:
- Ensuring security and safety at courthouses
- Preventing unauthorized recording, livestreaming, or dissemination of courtroom materials
- Preserving courtroom order and the dignity of judicial proceedings.
The expert stated:
“These are all legitimate objectives. The real question is whether the chosen measures are proportionate.
Not every electronic device is used for recording or livestreaming. […] If the goal is to prevent unauthorized recording, authorities can address the unlawful act itself rather than prohibit people from bringing all electronic devices into the courtroom.”
Atty. Hoàng Hà echoed this view in a Facebook post:
“These are three different issues. Bringing a device into the courtroom is one thing. Using it to review case files is another example. Recording or livestreaming is something else entirely. Treating all three as one prohibited act is unreasonable.”
He added that courts could inspect devices at security checkpoints, and presiding judges already have the authority to order such items put away if they disrupt proceedings, noting the following:
“Cases involving state secrets, minors, or other protected information may warrant stricter restrictions. But exceptions for special cases should not become the general rule for every trial.”
A Permission-based System: In addition, the anonymous legal expert argued that the circular effectively turns a lawyer’s ordinary working tool into something subject to official discretion.
“More troubling is that the use of electronic devices depends entirely on the presiding judge’s approval. This effectively transforms an ordinary professional tool into a privilege granted through a permission-based system.
Such a system allows a judge who dislikes a particular lawyer to refuse permission. Yet the right to legal defense is constitutionally protected, and lawyers should be provided the conditions necessary to perform their duties—not be dependent on the individual discretion of the person presiding over the trial.”
Undermining Courtroom Advocacy: In a Facebook post, Atty. Nguyễn Thu Hương warned that the regulation could “restrict lawyers’ ability to practice” because electronic devices allow them to quickly access documents and respond effectively before the trial panel.
- The anonymous legal expert shared the same concern with Luật Khoa:
“Most case files, legal documents, precedents, and defense arguments are now stored electronically. Requiring lawyers to leave these devices outside the courtroom significantly limits their ability to access case materials, research the law, and respond promptly to developments during trial.”
- Atty. Khánh Vân also noted on Facebook:
“In practice, some criminal, economic, and corruption cases involve tens of thousands of pages of evidence. Printing the entire file is not only prohibitively expensive but also creates an enormous volume of documents that is practically impossible to carry to every hearing.”
Safeguarding Electronic Devices: Atty. Trần Đại Lâm raised an entirely different concern in a Facebook post, regarding how devices would be protected if they must be left outside the courtroom. He wrote:
“The circular does not specify where these devices will be stored, how they will be received, safeguarded, and returned, or who is responsible for them.
In reality, phones and laptops are not only valuable property but also contain personal data, confidential work information, legal documents, electronic evidence, and other sensitive materials. Without secure storage, both lawyers and members of the public face risks of loss, damage, theft, or unauthorized access.”
Concerns Over Litigants’ Rights: Atty. Trần Trọng Hòa questioned how the rule would affect the rights of litigants, writing:
“This regulation is ill-suited to a judicial system that remains deeply troubled, as in Vietnam. Audio and video recordings are essential for documenting misconduct by judicial officials and preserving evidence needed to file complaints or denunciations. They also protect participants in legal proceedings and those attending trials. […] If recording is prohibited, what evidence will these people have to protect themselves?”
The anonymous legal expert agreed, emphasizing the role of public oversight:
“A public trial means more than simply opening courtroom doors. It also requires enabling society to supervise judicial proceedings within the limits permitted by law. Often, audio or video recordings provide objective evidence when resolving complaints about procedural violations, the conduct of judicial officials, or what actually occurred during a hearing.
In my view, the law should clearly distinguish between unauthorized recording for online dissemination and the legitimate use of electronic devices for legal defense, case research, or documenting proceedings under procedures authorized by law.”
Unable to Contact: Luật Khoa Magazine was unable to reach the Supreme People’s Court by telephone.
- On the afternoon of July 20, Luật Khoa Magazine also sent the court an email seeking comment on the legal community’s criticisms and asking for clarification of several provisions in Circular No. 12.
- By the time of publication, the court had not responded.
Hoàng Nam wrote this article in Vietnamese and published it in Luật Khoa Magazine on July 20, 2026. The Vietnamese Magazine has the copyrights to the English translation.
