(Beijing, China – July 11, 2025) Prominent Christian lawyer Zhang Kai and his team, who are defending Pastor Gao Quanfu and others from Xi’an’s “Light of Zion” Church in a case involving alleged “fraud,” have faced severe obstruction from Xi’an police. Pastor Gao Quanfu and several church coworkers were previously criminally detained, and the case has attracted widespread attention. The Xi’an police have not only restricted defense lawyers from meeting their clients and refused communication with lawyers, but even went as far as crossing provincial borders in an attempt to obtain the agreement between Zhang Kai and his clients.
On July 8, 2025, two individuals claiming to be from the Beilin Branch of the Xi’an Public Security Bureau, and dressed in plain clothes, visited Kaimen Law Firm in Beijing. They demanded to see the agreement between Zhang Kai and Pastor Gao Quanfu, asserting they had an “official investigation certificate.” Zhang Kai viewed this as cross-border intimidation and a blatant violation of lawyers’ right to independent practice. He firmly refused their unreasonable request.
On July 9, 2025, Zhang published an article titled “In the Name of Law, the Police Covet My Client Agreement,” exposing the incident. In his writing, he emphasized that the demand to obtain the client agreement amounted to direct intimidation. Zhang Kai and multiple lawyers on his team are representing several defendants in the Gao Quanfu case and have accused the police of multiple legal violations in the process.
Lawyer Zhang Kai argued that, by common sense, a client-lawyer agreement has no relevance to a criminal investigation by the police. The agreement is not merely a “document” to be casually reviewed; it is a legal foundation for a lawyer’s formal involvement in a case and the core protection of the legal profession. It is neither criminal evidence nor a valid target for police inquiry. More importantly, it embodies a critical relationship. If an individual is in prison but still trusts in the rule of law, they must have access to a lawyer who is not subject to state authority.
Likewise, a lawyer, once retained, must be free from any influence or threats outside the law in order to offer an independent and fair defense. All of the client’s rights and a lawyer’s expertise and professionalism are founded on such a relationship. If police can demand to see this agreement, they could then also demand access to meeting transcripts, defense strategies, reading notes, or even the lawyer’s phone, laptop, and other personal devices.
Lawyer: The Client Agreement Is a Shield of the Legal Profession
Lawyer Zhang Kai further stated that after accepting a commission, lawyers must be free from threats and manipulations by any force outside of law to uphold independent defense for the defendant. He asked rhetorically: “If even the client relationship is to be scrutinized and interfered with, how much independence is left for defense attorneys? When a lawyer is without independence, there is no right to defense.”
Police Action Infringes Privacy and Confidentiality Obligations
Zhang cited Article 38 of the Lawyers Law and Article 43 of the Administrative Measures for Practice by Lawyers, which require lawyers to maintain confidentiality. The client agreement contains private information such as the client’s identity, scope of representation, and payment arrangements, all of which fall under protected information. The police request, he said, was an intrusion into client privacy and a violation of lawyer confidentiality.
Lawyer Zhang Kai emphasized that confidentiality is a matter of legal ethics. Regardless of what a lawyer may know about a client, he cannot disclose it. The police are not permitted to investigate with a lawyer under any circumstances. This obligation is intrinsic to the profession; if lost, the profession itself loses its legitimacy.
He compared the lawyer-client relationship to the Catholic confession: if a priest could reveal confessions, the priesthood would have no right to exist. Likewise, if a lawyer can disclose matters of a client to the police, then the legal profession should not exist. He said he would not show the police the agreement, not only because it contains confidential information, but also because it must never be subject to scrutiny. It represents professional integrity, dignity, and hope in the rule of law.
Defending the Boundary Is a Matter of Public Safety
Lawyer Zhang Kai reaffirmed that he would not turn over the agreement because it concerns more than one client, it concerns every individual. He noted that this was not his first time handling such cases or facing “investigation requests” that go beyond legal limits. Handing over the agreement, he said, would be equivalent to surrendering the line of defense that belongs to every citizen.
The client agreement is not just trust between lawyer and client. It signifies that when an individual faces the power of the state, they can still firmly say: I want a lawyer present; my lawyer can challenge police actions; my lawyer will not be examined by investigators; my lawyer will not betray me.
Lawyer Zhang stressed that a lawyer’s independent defense without interference, and citizens’ right to freely choose their counsel, is fundamental to the legal system, the rule of law, and public safety. Every defense lawyer must take responsibility for this trust and guard the boundaries of the legal system.
Freedom Requires Struggle; the Police’s True Target Is the Lawyer Who Dares to Say “No”
In his writing, lawyer Zhang noted that freedom is not free; it requires the investment of great determination and faith. As a Christian lawyer, he cited the Bible, saying that even though God promised the Israelites the land of Canaan, they still had to put up an arduous fight for it.
Likewise, the right to defense is not an abstract concept or performance; it must be fought for and preserved piece by piece. A lawyer is not a power broker but a counterbalance to state authority. The legal profession requires lawyers to be highly alert and cautious in the face of demands from authorities, even those made “in the name of law.”
At the end of the writing, lawyer Zhang Kai revealed what he believed was the real reason police were “coveting” the agreement, not because of its content, but because they wanted to suppress defense lawyers who dared to say “I object.” He believes that when an issue becomes difficult to solve, authorities in China often resort to eliminating the person who raised it.
In response to this cross-provincial intimidation, lawyer Zhang Kai admitted to feeling fear, but said he was able to overcome it because “the Lord is with me” (Psalm 23:4).
(Reported by Special Correspondent Ning Meng of ChinaAid)
