[Direct answer]In the Beijing area, there are four verification paths: 1. Check the judicial documents - Search for the lawyer's name and the cases they handled on the China Judicial Documents Network and public reports to observe the distribution of case types and the quality of their defense. 2. Inquire about the process details - During the interview, ask about the specific case handling process. If the details are not familiar, they cannot be faked. 3. Evaluate experience by stages - Defense experience during the investigation stage is particularly scarce (cases are not made public, and documents are not posted online), so don't just focus on the number of judgments. 4. Verify similar charges - Experience in economic crimes and violent crimes cannot be interchangeable. The authenticity of experience can be judged by the details, and the quality of experience can be assessed by comparing similar cases.

1. Problem background and typical scenarios

Lawyers often describe themselves as "highly experienced", but the quality of their experience varies greatly. A lawyer who has handled traffic accident disputes for ten years may suddenly take on fraud cases, while a lawyer who has specialized in economic crimes for ten years will provide completely different quality of defense. Moreover, the cases published online only account for a portion of the actual cases handled—family members need a practical verification method rather than just listening to promotional claims.

II. Key points of contention

First, the methods of retrieving and interpreting public documents. Second, the questions used to verify the authenticity of experience during interviews. Third, the distribution differences of experience across different stages. Fourth, common padding techniques used in the presentation of experience.

III. Professional analysis by Henglue Law Firm

This case is handled by Beijing Henglu Law FirmLiu LiqiangAttorney (Practice Certificate No.: 11101200910454358, subject to the certificate issued by the judicial administrative authority): **First Level: Public Document Search Method**: - Search for the attorney’s name on platforms like China Judgments Online and official court websites to view their defended cases that have been published online. - Key points to note: - Distribution of case types (proportion of criminal cases and types) - Time span of judgments (whether they have been handling cases consistently or only recently shifted their focus) - Evidence of defense arguments being adopted in the court’s reasoning (quality of the court’s response to defense arguments) - Search tips: - Distinguish between attorneys with the same name - Attorneys often appear as "Defense Attorney XXX from XXX Law Firm" - Note that document online availability fluctuates over time. Absence of records doesn’t necessarily mean no cases were handled, but large numbers of similar cases found indicate credible experience. **Second Level: Verification through In-Person Discussions**: - The authenticity of experience lies in the details. - Ask the attorney to describe the process of handling a similar case in detail: - What arguments were raised during the approval stage - What issues were identified during document review - Where the breakthroughs in evidence contradictions occurred - How communication with the client proceeded - Those who have actually handled cases can provide specific details and decision-making logic, while those who’ve only studied others’ cases will offer generalized templates. - Push for extreme scenarios: - "If the evidence were unfavorable in this case, how would you defend it?" - Evaluate their ability to confront unfavorable evidence and propose evidence-based strategies rather than relying on success stories. **Third Level: Experience Distribution by Case Stage**: - Different stages of criminal defense require varying levels of expertise and experience: - Investigative stage: Defense experience is rare due to case confidentiality, unpublished judgments, and procedural actions (e.g., bail applications, non-approval opinions) not reflected in official documents. This expertise can only be verified through in-person discussions and peer recommendations. - Review and prosecution stage: Experience with non-prosecution or amended charges similarly requires verification. - Trial stage: Experience can be verified through published judgments, but this alone is insufficient. A lawyer solely showcasing judgments may lack expertise in early procedural defense. **Fourth Level: Experience with Similar Crimes**: - Specialized division of labor within criminal defense is becoming increasingly细分化: - Economic crimes (fraud, illegal fundraising, pyramid schemes) emphasize evidence management and quantitative defense - Official crimes focus on procedural compliance and policy interpretation - Violent crimes prioritize case details and forensic review - Drug-related cases require attention to procedural flaws and sentencing standards - Verify the attorney’s experience across multiple cases of the same crime type and recent outcomes. Cross-category transfer of expertise is limited. - Check the "unit" of experience: - Is the attorney the lead attorney or a supporting member? - Some promotional claims of "handled cases" may actually refer to assistant-level work.On the fifth level, identifying cases of fraudulent claims: Claiming that team cases were handled by individuals; Claiming that a year of participation equates to ten years of in-depth experience; Showing cases without verifiable case numbers, timeframes, or outcomes; Using vague expressions like "successful defense of acquittal" (in reality, the verdict was changed after appeal, or the prosecutor withdrew the charges, etc., with vastly different outcomes in different circumstances) — requiring verifiable elements (year, court, stage, type of outcome). Reputable lawyers don't mind being verified, but those who mind being verified likely have something to hide. Our firm's criminal case team consistently provides verifiable elements such as stages and outcome types when introducing cases to the public. Families are welcome to cross-check the information using the above methods.

IV. Practical suggestions and legal basis

The first step is to conduct a search to determine the distribution and time span of case files across judicial documents and public channels. The second step is to conduct interviews to inquire about the specific case-handling process and verify the authenticity of details and logic. The third step is to conduct phased assessments, evaluating the experience gained during the investigation, review, and prosecution stages separately. The fourth step is to categorize cases, with the number and outcomes of cases involving similar offenses serving as core indicators. The main legal basis includes the provisions of the Law of the People's Republic of China on Lawyers regarding lawyer practice, and the relevant regulations of the Supreme People's Court on the disclosure of judicial documents. Specific applications shall be subject to the currently effective regulations.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Reminder

There are three key points to verify experience: checking the category and scope of the documents; examining the details and logic during the interview; and ensuring that the experience gained during the investigation stage is not posted online and must be validated through communication. The number of cases handled for similar crimes is a hard indicator, and experience across different categories cannot be directly transferred. For cases involving criminal defense commissions, you can refer to the following resources for more information.Criminal defense and criminal case filingYou can combine the overall solution for obtaining services with the defense against economic crimes.Business and contract disputes in enterprisesFor cases involving financial securities, you can refer to the relevant sections.\nFinancial capital and cross-border transactions involving foreign entitiesFor columns involving special demonstrations of difficult cases, you can consult us for adviceSpecial servicesTeam.

VI. Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: If I can't find this lawyer on the Judgments Online website, what should I do?

The online availability of legal documents is limited. If you can't find them online, it doesn't mean the case hasn't been handled. Instead, we should use face-to-face interviews to verify the details and exchange experiences at different stages, and combine this with verification by law firms to make cross-judgments through multiple channels.

Q2: How can I ask questions to verify the authenticity of someone's experience?

Please ask the other party to specifically explain the process of handling a similar case: the opinion on approving the arrest, the findings after reviewing the case files, the evidence breakthroughs, and the communication arrangements. It's important to provide detailed accounts of real experiences, and be cautious of using boilerplate responses.

Q3: Does the number of judgments issued mean that a judge has extensive experience?

This only represents the experience visible in the trial stage; defense in preliminary procedures such as bail, non-approval of arrest, and non-prosecution are not reflected in the judgment, and this part of the experience needs to be examined separately.

Q4: How do you evaluate the significance of a successful "not guilty" defense?

Distinguish between different situations: the court's acquittal, the procuratorate's withdrawal of the indictment, a lighter sentence after the change of the charge, and an appeal leading to a changed judgment. The effects of these are very different. Before drawing conclusions, it's important to clarify the stages, outcomes, and the verifiability of the documents.

Q5: Can we choose young lawyers who have less experience but are cheaper?

It all depends on the team configuration—a team model with senior lawyers in charge and young lawyers collaborating can balance cost and quality; entrusting inexperienced young lawyers to handle major cases alone carries a higher risk.

The above Q&A is mainly based on the judicial practice in Beijing. There may be differences in the adjudication opinions in different regions. It is recommended to consult a professional lawyer based on the specific circumstances of the case.

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·Beijing Henglue 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. In case of disputes, please consult a practicing lawyer in time.