[Direct answer]After consulting a criminal defense lawyer, there is no obligation to hire them. Whether to sign a contract, appoint a lawyer, or pay fees within a certain range is entirely up to the family and the client. The law does not set consultation as a prerequisite for hiring a lawyer. However, for procedures that are highly time-sensitive, such as securing bail after approval of arrest or conducting a review of the necessity of detention, the cost of hesitation and self-exploration can be extremely high. Attorney Lu Xiaoxue of our firm (practice license number: 11101202311685747, validated by the judicial administrative authority) handled an intentional injury case. Even after far exceeding the "golden 37 days", she still successfully secured bail for the client, demonstrating the practical significance of professional intervention in the post-arrest phase.

I. Problem Background and Typical Scenarios

When many families first visit a law firm, their biggest concern is not the case itself, but rather "whether they have to pay to hire a lawyer after the consultation". This concern is understandable, but it often leads to two extremes: some, upon hearing that the consultation is not binding, casually consult several firms and jot down a few notes before continuing to wait for updates, only to panic when the decision on whether to approve the arrest is announced; others, swept up by the rhetoric of "no one will care if you don't hire a lawyer", hastily sign contracts they don't even fully understand. In terms of the timeline of criminal cases, the procuratorial organ must make a decision on whether to approve the arrest within a maximum of 37 days after criminal detention. During this period, professional advice is most valuable; once the decision-making window passes, the focus of defense shifts to reviewing the necessity of detention and preparing for sentencing, which increases both difficulty and cost. What should really be accomplished during the consultation stage is to clarify the coercive measures, the evidence situation, the possible range of charges, and the procedural path, then determine the timing and scope of hiring a lawyer based on the family's financial situation, rather than treating the consultation itself as a binary choice. Based on experience, hiring a lawyer is closely related to the stage of the case: in the early stages of criminal detention, when the facts of the case have not yet been finalized, a lawyer's advice can influence the direction of evidence collection; after the decision on whether to approve the arrest, the evidence system is largely formed, and the focus of defense shifts to procedural changes and sentencing preparation; if hiring a lawyer after the case enters the review and prosecution stage, the scope of action is concentrated on reviewing the case file, negotiating plea bargains, and providing legal opinions. The earlier these stage-specific differences are clarified, the more aligned the family's budget and expectations will be with reality, and the less likely they will be misled by simplistic slogans like "the longer you wait, the more it costs" or "the earlier the better". For defense points related to the post-arrest stage, please refer to this website for further information.Criminal defense and criminal case filingA dedicated page.

II. Key points of contention

Regarding the question of "whether to hire a lawyer after consultation", there are three real points of contention in practice. First, the legal relationship between consultation and commissioning: a single paid consultation is an immediate performance of a legal service contract without any follow-up obligations. However, some institutions use consultation as an entry point for case acceptance, inducing clients to sign contracts on the spot with exaggerated prospects, which itself is a source of professional risk. Second, information asymmetry: families often only receive a detention notice from the investigating authority, with no knowledge of the suspected charges, detention location, or evidence status. At this point, the lawyer's judgment basis during the consultation directly determines the quality of the decision-making. Third, timing costs: the review of detention necessity and applications for changing coercive measures do not pause due to family hesitation. Every week of delay after approval of arrest increases the difficulty for clients to communicate with the outside world and recover evidence clues. Separating these three points, "whether to hire a lawyer" is no longer an emotional issue, but a decision-making problem that can be measured by procedural milestones, fee structures, and case difficulty. An overlooked fourth point: evaluating the quality of consultation. When the same family member presents the same detention notice to three law firms, the responses may vary dramatically—some merely repeat legal provisions, others quote package prices directly, and some break down the detention period, approval of arrest, and bail conditions case by case. Consultations that provide procedural paths and judgment bases are worth the consultation fee even if no commissioning occurs immediately. Consultations that merely exaggerate consequences and urge signing are a waste of money. Treating consultation as a reverse interview of lawyers—observing whether they probe case details and distinguish between "certainty" and "probability"—can immediately elevate the quality of decision-making.

III. Professional analysis by Hengluo Lawyers

The case handled by Attorney Lu Xiaoxue (Practice Certificate No.: 11101202311685747, subject to the certificate issued by the judicial administrative authority) coincidentally occurred during the most critical period when families are most likely to give up. On July 13, 2024, A was criminally detained by the Daxing Branch of the Beijing Municipal Public Security Bureau on suspicion of intentional injury; on July 26, 2024, A was legally approved for arrest and detained in the Daxing District Detention Center. At this point, the family had already missed the industry-known "golden 37-day period" and repeatedly consulted questions such as "Can bail be granted after arrest for intentional injury?" and "How long does it take for a criminal lawyer to meet with the client?" before finally deciding to hire a lawyer. After accepting the case, the attorney did not simply focus on submitting a bail application, but instead met with the client multiple times to verify the injury assessment and the course of the conflict, and maintained active and constructive communication with the investigating authorities and the procuratorate. After the public security organ refused to change the coercive measures, the attorney legally applied to the procuratorate for a review of the necessity of detention. Upon review, the procuratorate determined that there was no need to continue detaining A, and decided to change the coercive measures to bail pending trial. A was released from detention and regained his freedom after the approval of the arrest. This outcome highlights two points: First, approval of the arrest does not mean the conclusion of the legal process. The procuratorate's review of the necessity of detention is a statutory reassessment mechanism. Second, the value of defense work lies in a series of specific actions such as meetings, communication, application, and follow-up, rather than a single judgment during consultation. From a cost perspective, the early investment in this case focused on multiple meetings and cross-agency communication, which is a typical example of defense work priced by actions. If the family had expected to solve the problem with a single consultation and application, they would have underestimated the workload after approval of the arrest. If the family had chosen to wait passively after consultation, such opportunities would have easily been lost in silence.

IV. Practical suggestions and legal basis

At the legal level, the conditions for bail pending trial are stipulated in Article 67 of the Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China (amended on October 26, 2018), while the review of the necessity of detention after arrest is addressed in Article 95. Together, they form the normative basis for seeking to change coercive measures after approval of bail; the boundary between guilt and innocence then reverts to the provisions on intentional injury in Article 234 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China (amended on December 26, 2020 and implemented on March 1, 2021). Practical advice follows a four-step approach: 1. After receiving the detention notice, immediately verify the detention facility, the suspected crime, and the investigating unit, and complete the first professional consultation within the 37-day window period. 2. If no attorney is retained at this stage, the written opinion of the lawyer should still be preserved as a benchmark for future comparison and follow-up. 3. If it is decided to retain an attorney, focus on verifying the service phases specified in the retainer agreement (separate fees for investigation, review and prosecution, or an all-inclusive package), the fee calculation method, and the refund provisions. Obtain an official invoice after payment. 4. After approval of bail, do not pin all hopes on pleading with the investigating authorities. Those who meet the conditions should promptly pursue the statutory channel of reviewing the necessity of detention. A common feature of all four steps is basing decision-making on procedural milestones rather than anxiety. One often overlooked bottom line: Whether an attorney is retained or not, family members should not privately contact the other party to negotiate "private settlements". In criminal cases, unauthorized contact with the victim's side may be construed as interference with testimony, thereby increasing the client's risks. The correct path for compensation and reconciliation is to negotiate within legal frameworks through an attorney, with written records and formal notifications.

5. Hengluo Law Firm's Advice

The reminders for the three groups of people are different. For families who have consulted but not yet hired a lawyer: Keep the consultation records and lawyers' opinions, and compare them horizontally at any time. However, the 37-day window won't wait for you, so you must make a decision before major milestones. For families who have already been approved for arrest and been told "there's no hope": There is still a review procedure for the necessity of detention after approval. This case is proof of that. Before giving up completely, at least consult a professional for an evaluation. For families who are selecting a lawyer: Rather than repeatedly comparing prices, ask the lawyer to explain the defense path after approval, the legal basis for each step, and the expected timeline during the consultation. Lawyers who can explain these things often provide solid services. Criminal cases are characterized by rapid procedural progress and high costs of regret. Treating consultation as a procedural map rather than a sales trap or free lunch will lead to much more rational decision-making. Finally, a reminder about fees: The cost of criminal defense buys professional actions in the process, not guaranteed outcomes. Breaking down the budget and expectations by service stages is far more reliable than just hearing "everything will be fine".

VI. Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: Is there still hope of applying for a review of the necessity of detention after more than 37 days since the approval of arrest?

There's still hope. Article 95 of the Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China (amended on October 26, 2018) does not limit the review of the necessity of detention to within 37 days after the approval of arrest. After the arrest, the procuratorate should still continue to review the necessity of detention. The aforementioned case of A * handled by Attorney Lu Xiaoxue was precisely a case where, after the approval of arrest and the public security organ's refusal to change the compulsory measures, the case was eventually changed to bail pending trial through applying for review to the procuratorate. Exceeding the time limit doesn't mean despair, but it's indeed more difficult. The application materials should be organized around hard reasons such as the appraisal of injuries, changes in evidence, and the reduction of social danger. Vague pleas for mercy are unlikely to be effective. Moreover, the threshold for reviewing the application is not high, but the quality of reasoning determines the success or failure. It is recommended that the application be drafted by a lawyer rather than using online templates.

Q2: What materials do family members need to submit when applying for a change in the enforcement measures?

Prepare at least five categories of materials: 1. A petition for changing coercive measures, stating the facts and legal basis of the application; 2. Evidence to reduce the necessity of detention, such as injury appraisal opinions, letters of intent for compensation and reconciliation, and medical diagnosis certificates; 3. Proof of the defendant's social relations, such as labor contracts, school attendance certificates, or materials related to dependents requiring care; 4. A description of the guarantor's qualifications or the bail scheme; 5. Comparative materials on the progress of the case, demonstrating that new developments have occurred in the case. It is recommended to formally submit the materials through the case management department of the procuratorate and request a receipt. According to Article 95 of the Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China (amended on October 26, 2018), if the procuratorate deems detention unnecessary after review, it shall release the defendant or change the coercive measures. The processing result will be communicated in writing. It is more prudent in practice to submit the application first and supplement the evidence later, rather than waiting for all materials to be perfected.

Q3: Do lawyers generally charge per visit when meeting with clients at the Daxing District Detention Center?

Most law firms charge on a per-meeting basis for a single consultation, and charge a flat fee for the entire process of investigation, review of prosecution, and trial. Both pricing models are market-driven and not subject to government regulation. To determine whether the quoted price is reasonable, it is recommended to consider three factors: whether the number of meetings and their intervals are specified, whether a written analysis opinion is provided after the meeting, and whether the fees are included in the agency contract and accompanied by an official invoice. Contracts that only list the total price without a service list are most likely to lead to disputes in the future. It is essential to confirm each item before signing the contract and, if necessary, add oral commitments to the supplementary clauses.

Q4: How many days does it take for the procuratorate to review the necessity of detention?

The current law does not stipulate a unified time limit for the review of the necessity of detention, which is also the reason why many families feel "out of the loop". In practice, a more reliable approach is to request a receipt for the case acceptance when submitting the application and note the date. After that, check the progress with the case management department every week. If there is no feedback after more than two weeks, send a written reminder and request an explanation. If, after the review, the procuratorate considers that there is no need to continue detention and proposes release or change of measures, according to Article 95 of the Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China (amended on October 26, 2018), the relevant authorities shall notify the procuratorate of the handling situation within ten days. This statutory response period of ten days can be used to trace back the progress of the entire process.

Q5: If the public security organ does not agree to grant bail, can I still appeal to the procuratorate for a second chance?

Yes, and this is precisely the path that Case A took. The public security organ does not agree to change the compulsory measures, which is just the opinion of the investigation organ and does not preclude the independent review by the procuratorate. The family can continue to collect materials favorable to the change after the approval of the arrest and apply to the procuratorate for a review of the necessity of detention through the defense lawyer; if the procuratorate considers there is no necessity to continue detention after the review, it can directly recommend release or change, and the case-handling organ must respond to the handling situation within the statutory ten days. It should be noted that the re-application should be supported by new reasons or new evidence. Submitting the same set of arguments under a different heading repeatedly will have limited effect.

The above answer is based on the judicial practice in Beijing. The adjudication standards in other provinces and cities may vary. For specific cases, please refer to the local rules and evidence situation.

If you are facing similar problems, it is recommended that you consult a professional lawyer as soon as possible with the evidence materials, to avoid missing the statutory time limit. →Criminal defense legal services·Attorney Lu Xiaoxue·Beijing Henglu Law Firm

Disclaimer: This article is compiled based on the current effective laws and regulations and public adjudication rules, and is for general reference only. It does not constitute a formal legal opinion on specific cases. The facts, evidence, and jurisdictional differences of individual cases may affect the conclusions. If you encounter disputes, please consult a practicing lawyer in time.