After a year of upheaval, the legal profession in Việt Nam faces another surprise blow from the authorities: Starting Aug. 1, 2026, phones, tablets, laptops, smartwatches, and devices capable of recording audio or video or transmitting or receiving electronic signals are barred from trials and court hearings without the presiding judge’s explicit permission. [1]
This new restriction is detailed in Article 4, Clause 3 of Circular 12/2026/TT-TANDTC. [2] It is no longer just a rule on paper, as the ban is already being actively enforced in courts. [3]
While the balance of public and private power has long favored the authorities, this specific circular is enough to leave the entire legal profession sweating over the future of its work. [4]
At Odds with the Shift to Digital
This circular has left lawyers stunned, seemingly stranded by a digital transformation that is sweeping across society and the broader legal sector. The government has actively championed this shift by launching a national digital transformation program and embedding it directly into law. [5] As a result, digital tools are now part of administrative reforms designed to cut paperwork, allowing citizens to handle residence registrations, birth registrations, passport applications, and digital health insurance entirely online.
This commitment has been heavily codified into law.
The Politburo’s Resolution 57-NQ/TW established digital transformation as a driver of socioeconomic development, [7] and just last year, the National Assembly passed the Law on Digital Transformation to set the principles and national coordination mechanisms for the process. [6]
This begs the question: if the entire society is moving toward a digital future, why are lawyers being denied basic tools like laptops and phones?
An Uneven Playing Field
This arrangement creates a deeply unfair environment, especially as the courts themselves utilize electronic devices and steadily move toward the widespread adoption of electronic courts. [8] Even virtual court assistants equipped with artificial intelligence are becoming common tools to support adjudication and look up legal documents. [9]
Ironically, in an institution meant to embody fairness, judges and prosecutors can seamlessly search digital records using computers, while lawyers are restricted from using their basic working tools.
The sheer volume of a standard case file makes this restriction impractical. Commercial cases routinely involve thousands of pages of documents, including land records, bank statements, invoices, contracts, interview records, transaction data, and expert findings. Furthermore, authorized representatives for businesses, banks, and credit institutions must also consult hundreds of supporting documents, reconciliation reports, and years of accumulated data.
For these professionals, using a laptop or phone to navigate thousands of pages is as ordinary as any office worker using everyday workplace tools. Granting digital access exclusively to judges and prosecutors is akin to taking an exam where only your competitors are allowed to use computers.
Reviewing case files, collecting evidence, and presenting arguments are fundamental rights of defense counsel and lawyers protecting litigants’ lawful interests. Modern technology simply enables them to exercise these rights effectively. Forcing a lawyer or representative to physically carry boxes of paper files into court and manually search page by page during an exchange is not just unfair; it wastes time, consumes paper, and undermines the efficiency of the entire proceeding.
Regulation by Prohibition
Ironically, the official justification for the ban is to “limit audio and video recording.” [10] However, this reasoning treats technology solely as a source of risk, ignoring its essential practical value. Every device serves multiple purposes: a phone acts as a library for legal research, a tablet stores digitized case files, and a laptop is an indispensable tool for lawyers and legal staff.
The mere possibility of misuse does not justify a blanket prohibition. The standard legal approach is to regulate a tool’s usage and penalize violations, rather than automatically treating lawful objects as inherently dangerous. If the state’s reasoning were applied universally, the purchase of knives and scissors would also be banned just because these items could be used as weapons.
This peculiar “if we cannot manage it, ban it” mindset is deeply entrenched in the system, echoing recent prohibitions on readers quoting news articles under the guise of intellectual property. [11]
In contrast, other jurisdictions avoid such restrictions. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, for example, permits phones, tablets, and laptops inside its courthouses. [12] Rather than banning the devices entirely, the court strictly prohibits photography, recording, and livestreaming while allowing practical uses like note-taking and emailing.
The impulse to ban what authorities cannot effectively regulate reveals either administrative incompetence or a different agenda entirely. By eliminating an entire category of working tools instead of controlling individual conduct, the state turns a basic question of regulation into an outright prohibition.
Đan Thanh wrote this article in Vietnamese and published it in Luật Khoa Magazine on September 28, 2026. The Vietnamese Magazine translated it into English.
