Redefining the lawyer’s role in Vietnam’s justice system

Three legal developments emerging in Vietnam are drawing unusual attention from the country’s legal community First, according to mainstream media, authorities are considering criminal liability for lawyers who fail to report clients suspected of planning or committing crimes. Second, a new regulation allows commune-level authorities, in certain cases, to revoke lawyers’ practicing certificates. Third, as reported by Tuổi Trẻ Online, a proposal under review would permit police officers, military personnel, and government officials to serve as “public lawyers.” Individually, each measure can be explained as an effort to improve oversight or strengthen public safety. Taken together, however, they suggest something broader: a potential redefinition of the role of lawyers within Vietnam’s justice system. A profession built on independence In most modern legal systems, lawyers are not simply service providers. They are one of the pillars of a fair trial, functioning as a counterbalance to state power. Their ability to fulfill that role depends on two essential conditions: independence and confidentiality. Confidentiality, in particular, is not a technical detail but a structural necessity. Without it, clients will hesitate to speak openly. And without full disclosure, lawyers cannot properly advise or defend. This is why, in many jurisdictions, lawyer-client communication is treated as a protected space — one of the few environments where individuals can speak candidly without immediate legal consequences. The proposal to criminalize a lawyer’s silence challenges that foundation. As one Vietnamese lawyer wrote in a widely shared Facebook post: “If clients know their lawyer is legally obliged to report them, they will stop talking. If they stop talking, the lawyer will not know. And if the lawyer does not know, they cannot advise clients to stop before a crime happens.” The concern is not abstract. It points to a practical paradox: a rule intended to enhance crime prevention may undermine one of its most effective mechanisms — early legal counsel. Three pressures, one direction When placed side by side, the three developments affect the legal profession in distinct but converging ways. The proposed criminal liability introduces legal risk for inaction. Lawyers who do not report certain client conduct could face prosecution, effectively transforming silence into a potential offense. The administrative measure allowing local authorities to revoke practicing certificates introduces institutional dependence. The ability to practice law may, in some cases, hinge on decisions made at relatively low levels of government. The “public lawyer” proposal introduces a third dimension: internal transformation. By allowing individuals from within the state apparatus — police, military, or civil servants — to take on legal roles, it brings the profession closer to the system it is traditionally meant to balance. Individually, these changes may appear incremental. Collectively, they point toward a deeper shift: lawyers are increasingly subject to both external control and internal reconfiguration. Blurring boundaries In jurisdictions such as the United States and United Kingdom, the distinction between lawyers and the state remains clearly defined, even where public defender systems exist. Lawyers, regardless of who pays them, are bound first and foremost to their clients. Even in systems like Germany or France — where limited duties to report certain serious crimes exist — the principle of confidentiality remains strongly protected, and the professional boundary between defense and prosecution is carefully maintained. By contrast, when a system simultaneously expands reporting obligations, increases administrative oversight, and introduces state-affiliated legal actors, the line between “defender” and “state participant” can become less distinct. At that point, a more fundamental question arises: who exactly is the lawyer within the system? A broader legal context This shift also needs to be understood within the wider framework of Vietnamese law. The offense of “failure to report a crime” in Vietnam has a relatively broad scope compared to many other jurisdictions. In several countries, such obligations are limited to specific, serious offenses or apply only to certain professions. In Vietnam, the duty to report carries a more general character. While exemptions exist for close family members, they are not absolute and exclude various serious crimes. This reflects a consistent legal approach — one that emphasizes the role of individuals in assisting the detection and prevention of wrongdoing. Seen in that light, extending such expectations to lawyers may be less a departure than a continuation of an existing legal logic. An emerging structure Beyond individual policy changes, some analysts suggest these developments may be part of a broader structural evolution. Recent discussions on limiting legal education, combined with adjustments to licensing and the potential introduction of “public lawyers,” point to a possible reconfiguration of how the legal profession is formed and governed. While comprehensive data remains limited, it is often noted that a portion of newly licensed lawyers come from within the public sector, including retired judicial or law enforcement officials. If such trends continue, the legal profession may gradually evolve into a more internally regulated structure — one in which pathways into the profession, mechanisms of oversight, and sources of authority become more closely interconnected. At the same time, changes in legal education and access could influence the broader level of legal awareness in society, shaping not only who practices law, but who understands it. Not only trust, but identity The implications of these shifts extend beyond the question of trust between lawyer and client. They reach into the identity of the profession itself. If lawyers face criminal consequences for silence, they may prioritize self-protection. If their licenses can be withdrawn through administrative decisions, their independence may be constrained. And if the profession increasingly incorporates individuals from within the state system, its internal composition may change in subtle but significant ways. In such a context, the question is no longer only whether clients feel safe to speak — but also whether they understand whom they are speaking to. A systemic choice The developments unfolding in Vietnam do not point to a single, clear outcome. They do, however, suggest a system navigating a difficult balance between control and trust. A system oriented toward control may reduce certain risks in the short term. A system grounded in trust may better enable the full truth to emerge. When silence itself can become a crime, and when the role of the lawyer begins to shift from outside observer to internal participant, the question is no longer simply what lawyers should do. It is whether they can continue to serve as an independent pillar of justice — or whether their role within the system is being fundamentally redefined. Union of Catholic Asian New – April 28, 2026

Related posts:

1. Rights groups condemn 10-year jail term for Vietnam blogger The jailing of a Vietnamese blogger for 10 years was...
2. Vietnam jails two Hmong men for life on charge of trying to overthrow state A court in Vietnam jailed two men from the Hmong...
3. Vietnam jails high-profile environmentalist for tax evasion Nguy Thi Khanh, a globally recognised campaigner on climate and...