IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bdz/laweco/v4y2025i10p30-36.html

The Plight and Improvement of Duty Counsel in the Plea Leniency System

Author

Listed:
  • Jingya Tang

    (Law School, Sichuan University, Sichuan, China)

Abstract

The effective participation of duty counsel in the Plea Leniency System is crucial for safeguarding the legitimate rights of the accused and upholding judicial fairness. Since the revision of the Criminal Procedure Law in 2018, this mechanism has become an integral part of plea bargaining proceedings. However, multiple practical challenges persist. This paper argues that the core issue lies in the ambiguous role of duty counsel, who are not explicitly granted the status of defense counsel, resulting in a weak foundation for their procedural rights. Furthermore, inadequate protection of the right to access case files and the right to meet with clients in practice often reduces legal assistance to a mere formality. Additionally, a rigid subsidy mechanism fails to incentivize lawyers to deliver high-quality services. To address these shortcomings, this paper advocates for clarifying the defense counsel status of duty lawyers, systematically establishing pathways to secure their core rights, and implementing a flexible incentive system linked to workload and service quality. Such measures would enhance the effectiveness of their participation, strengthen institutional credibility, and ensure the system functions as intended.

Suggested Citation

  • Jingya Tang, 2025. "The Plight and Improvement of Duty Counsel in the Plea Leniency System," Law and Economy, Paradigm Academic Press, vol. 4(10), pages 30-36, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:bdz:laweco:v:4:y:2025:i:10:p:30-36
    DOI: 10.63593/LE.2788-7049.2025.11.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.paradigmpress.org/le/article/view/1908/1756
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.63593/LE.2788-7049.2025.11.004?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bdz:laweco:v:4:y:2025:i:10:p:30-36. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Editorial Office (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.paradigmpress.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.