文｜万茹佳

By Rujia Wan

写在前面：2023年9月的一个夜晚，北大法学院《纠纷解决》课堂上，我与汇仲、与王真律师团队初次相逢，那也是我第一次近距离走近诉讼律师这个群体。彼时的我，从未将诉讼律师纳入职业规划，更像一名旁观的旅人，怀揣着几分好奇与疏离，踏上了这趟未知的旅程。

未曾想，命运的齿轮，就在那个秋天的夜晚，悄然转动。或许是团队精心打磨的大事记、呈报文件、证据册所流露出的极致专业感，令我心生敬佩；或许是王律师那句“道为本，术为末”的执业箴言，与我内心的价值坐标深度共振；或许是那些化绝境为坦途、变不可能为可能的办案故事，唤醒了我藏于心底的英雄主义；又或许是，结课时在模拟法庭上肾上腺素飙升的交锋瞬间，点燃了我一往无前的职业热忱。

因缘际会，我与汇仲结缘，正式踏上诉讼律师的职业道路。如今，毕业入行已近一年，作为躬身入局的从业者，作为诉讼律师群体中的一名新人，回望来路，于我而言，这不仅是一份工作，更是一场认识世界、认识他人、最终认识自我的漫长修行。

一路走来，我遇见了并肩作战的战友，遇见了亦师亦友的合作伙伴；见证了百态人生的案件与诉求，体味了执业路上的困顿与欢喜，也发掘了突破潜能的自己。正因如此，我对诉讼律师这个群体、这份职业，有了全然不同、更为深刻的理解。这份理解，不足以定义整个群体，却是一名新人眼中，最鲜活、最真实的职业模样。

谨以此文，与所有深耕在路上、或将奔赴此行的法律同仁，共勉。

Preface: On an autumn night in September 2023, I first encountered Huizhong Law Firm and Lawyer Wang Zhen's team in the Dispute Resolution class at Peking University Law School. It was also my first time getting an up-close look at the litigation lawyer profession. At that time, I had never considered litigation as a career path. I was more like an observer on a journey, stepping into this unknown territory with a mix of curiosity and detachment.

Little did I know that the gears of fate would quietly turn that autumn night. Perhaps it was the team's meticulously crafted chronologies, submission documents, and evidence binders that exuded a sense of ultimate professionalism, inspiring my admiration. Perhaps it was Lawyer Wang's professional motto—"Tao is the foundation, technique is the means"—which resonated deeply with my inner values. Perhaps it was the case stories of turning desperate situations into clear paths, making the impossible possible, that awakened a dormant heroism within me. Or perhaps it was the adrenaline-fueled moments of courtroom simulation during the final class that ignited my unwavering professional passion.

By a combination of circumstances, I became connected with Huizhong and officially embarked on my career as a litigation lawyer. Now, nearly a year after graduation and entering the profession, as someone fully immersed in this field and a newcomer among litigation lawyers, I look back. For me, this is not just a job; it is a long journey of understanding the world, understanding others, and ultimately, understanding myself.

Along the way, I have met comrades who fight alongside me and partners who are both mentors and friends. I have witnessed cases and demands reflecting the myriad facets of life, experienced the frustrations and joys of this career, and discovered a version of myself that exceeded my own expectations. Because of all this, I have developed a completely different and deeper understanding of litigation lawyers and this profession. This understanding does not define the entire group, but it represents the most vivid and authentic portrayal of the profession through the eyes of a newcomer.

I dedicate this article to all legal professionals who are deeply engaged in this path or are about to embark on it, as mutual encouragement.

“欢迎来到真实世界”

“欢迎来到真实世界。”这是我入行后，印象最深的一句话。

01 两万字的“入场券”

彼时，我在带教律师的指导下，完成了一份关于股东代表诉讼（仲裁）案的法律分析方案。客户基于其商业诉求，抛出了各种“天马行空”、但又“切中要害”的“真问题”；带教律师不断追问、层层深挖、推敲细节。文书几经打磨，篇幅已超过两万字。文件最终定稿后，我在案件群里忍不住发出一声感慨：

“我只能说实践和理论真的不一样，没结合案子之前，我是真没想到股东代表诉讼/仲裁有这么多问题。”

王律师看到后，回复了这样一句：“欢迎来到真实世界。”

那份两万余字的法律分析方案，连同这句话，一起成了我从校园走向职场、完成认知蜕变的入场券。

"Welcome to the Real World"

"Welcome to the real world." This is the most memorable sentence I have heard since entering the profession.

01 The "Admission Ticket" of 20,000 Words

At the time, under the guidance of my supervising attorney, I completed a legal analysis plan for a shareholder derivative lawsuit (arbitration) case. Based on their business demands, the client raised various "unconventional" yet "critical" and "real" questions. The supervising attorney kept pressing, digging deeper, and scrutinizing details. The document went through multiple revisions, eventually exceeding 20,000 words. After the final version was settled, I couldn't help but exclaim in the case group chat:"I can only say that practice and theory are really different. Before integrating this with the case, I truly never imagined there were so many issues in shareholder derivative lawsuits/arbitration."

Upon seeing this, Lawyer Wang responded with just one sentence: "Welcome to the real world."

That legal analysis plan of over 20,000 words, along with those words, became my admission ticket from campus to the professional world, marking a cognitive transformation.

02 真实的世界，没有那么多确定性

学生时代，法律之于我，是严谨规整的条文，是体系精密的理论大厦，是供无数学子深耕辨析的终极命题。那是一个纯粹、简约、唯美，且带有某种确定性的理想世界。在那个世界里，即便是案例，也经过精心剪裁与高度抽象。于是，便有了所谓的ABCD选项，以及所谓的“标准答案”。

但真实的律师工作，完全不同。

我们面对的不是一个冰冷的“案例”，而是一个“活生生”的“纠纷”。在这里，没有那么多的确定性和理所当然，自然也就没有所谓的“标准答案”。

现实世界，纷繁复杂、变量丛生。同一种案型，可能会因为客户的商业诉求、诉讼策略的选择、故事呈现的叙述逻辑、证据搜集的方向和排列组合、对方律师的风格、法官的审理风格等等各种变量，走向截然不同的结果。

在真实的世界里——

“A公司”“B公司”“张三”“李四”，不再是一个留在纸面上的名称，而是需要律师与不同部门、不同角色的人员逐一接洽、访谈，从而拉开代理序幕的真实对象。不同的配合度、不同的询问策略，可能导致获知的信息真假参半，有效信息也因此大相径庭。

“真实意思表示”，不再是轻飘飘的六个字，而是律师扎进海量的证据里：翻阅成千上万的微信聊天记录和邮件往来，探究前因后果和商业考量；阅读询问笔录，查看是否有前后冲突或者相互印证的地方；比对流水和转账凭证的金额和备注；探查不同合同文本的细微差别——像侦探一样寻找蛛丝马迹，揣摩各方动机，尽可能还原事实的全貌。

股东代表诉讼中的“前置程序”，不是法条中那句“书面请求监事会（董事会）向人民法院提起诉讼”所能一笔带过的。它承载着客户的商业诉求，变成了一系列必须逐项落地的操作：前置程序启动的时间节点如何选择？催告函件如何拟定，才能不留漏洞又不提前暴露诉讼策略？发文主体如何确定？发函后如何处理？

每一个细节都带有变量。所有课本上未曾提及的实操问题，都是诉讼律师必须直面、必须解决的现实课题。

03 这才是诉讼律师真正的战场

脱离理论的象牙塔，扎根实务的土壤，在复杂的现实中解决一个个“真问题”，在不同的利益冲突中寻求正和博弈——这，才是真实的法律世界，才是诉讼律师真正的战场。

在这个战场里，诉讼律师不仅仅是冲锋陷阵的士兵，更是既要看清全局、又要落子每一步的战场指挥官——客户带着一团乱麻般的困境走来，我们要做的，不是从标准答案库里翻出一个现成解法，而是从零开始，梳理、拆解、重构，找到那条往往隐藏在暗处的破局之路。

没有两张完全相同的战场地图，也没有可以复用的标准战术。每一次案件，都是一场全新的战役——对手不同、地形不同、弹药不同，连“胜利”的定义都因客户的商业诉求而各不相同。

在这个战场里，法律不再是条文堆砌的知识，而是可以灵活驾驭的工具、杠杆，甚至武器。诉讼律师的价值，不在于背出多少法条，而在于为每一个独特的案件，量身打造一套可执行的作战方案。

正因如此，我想，下次再遇到股东代表诉讼（仲裁）案件，文件夹里的那份法律方案，固然有其可资借鉴之处，但一定有其必然需要更新迭代、甚至推翻重构的地方。

02 The Real World Doesn't Have So Much Certainty

As a student, law for me was rigorous and systematic provisions, a grand theoretical edifice with precise structure, and the ultimate propositions for countless scholars to analyze and debate. It was a pure, simple, aesthetic world with a certain degree of certainty. In that world, even cases were carefully edited and highly abstracted. Hence, there were the so-called options A, B, C, D, and the so-called "standard answers."

But real legal work is entirely different.

We don't face a cold "case" but a "living" "dispute." Here, there isn't so much certainty and taken-for-grantedness, and naturally, there are no "standard answers."

The real world is complex, full of variables. The same type of case can lead to completely different outcomes depending on various factors: the client's business demands, the choice of litigation strategy, the narrative logic of the story, the direction of evidence collection and its organization, the opposing counsel's style, the judge's adjudicative style, and more.

In the real world—"Company A," "Company B," "Zhang San," "Li Si" are no longer just names on paper. They are real entities that the lawyer must contact and interview one by one, with different departments and different personnel, to initiate the representation. Different levels of cooperation and different interrogation strategies can lead to a mix of true and false information, resulting in vastly different effective intelligence."Genuine expression of intent" is no longer a casual phrase. It means the lawyer must dive into a sea of evidence: sift through thousands of WeChat chat records and email exchanges to understand the causes, consequences, and commercial considerations; review interrogation records to check for conflicts or corroborations; compare the amounts and references on bank statements and transfer vouchers; and scrutinize subtle differences in various contract texts—acting like a detective looking for clues, inferring the motives of all parties, and reconstructing the facts as comprehensively as possible.

The "preliminary procedure" in a shareholder derivative lawsuit is not simply the statutory phrase "make a written request to the supervisory board (or board of directors) to file a lawsuit with the people's court." It carries the client's business demands and translates into a series of practical steps that must be implemented one by one: How to choose the timing for initiating the preliminary procedure? How to draft the demand letter to avoid loopholes without prematurely revealing the litigation strategy? How to determine the proper issuing entity? How to handle matters after the letter is sent?

Every detail carries variables. All the practical issues not mentioned in textbooks are real challenges that litigation lawyers must face and resolve.

03 This Is the True Battlefield for Litigation Lawyers

Leaving the ivory tower of theory, taking root in the soil of practice, solving "real problems" in complex realities, and seeking positive-sum games amidst conflicting interests—this is the real legal world, and this is the true battlefield for litigation lawyers.

On this battlefield, a litigation lawyer is not just a soldier charging forward but a battlefield commander who must see the big picture while making every move strategically. The client comes to us with a tangled mess of problems. Our job is not to find a ready-made solution from a standard answer bank, but to start from scratch—to untangle, deconstruct, and reconstruct—to find the often hidden path to a breakthrough.

There are no two identical battlefield maps, nor are there reusable standard tactics. Every case is a new campaign—different opponents, different terrain, different ammunition, and even the definition of "victory" varies based on the client's business demands.

On this battlefield, the law is no longer just a collection of provisions but a tool, a lever, and even a weapon that can be flexibly wielded. The value of a litigation lawyer lies not in reciting how many laws they know, but in crafting a tailored, executable operational plan for each unique case.

Therefore, I think that the next time I handle a shareholder derivative lawsuit (arbitration) case, the legal plan in my folder, while offering some reference, will certainly require updates, iterations, or even complete deconstruction and reconstruction.

“还有空间吗”

“别太自恋，我们不是神，只是区区的律师，不可能知道真相的。”

"Don't be too narcissistic. We are not gods, just mere lawyers. We cannot possibly know the ultimate truth."

“为自己委托人的利益全身而战，我们律师能做的只有这个。”

"Fight wholeheartedly for the interests of your client. That's all we lawyers can do."

《Legal High》里的这两句台词，自学生时代便深植我心。而当我真正投身律师行业后，才愈发读懂，字句背后藏着的，是每一位诉讼律师日复一日、从未停歇的自我叩问：

“还有空间吗？”

在这场永不停歇的自我追问下，在愈加得心应手的实战淬炼中，我逐渐将诉讼代理的核心目标，凝练为两个相辅相成、层层递进的维度。

01. 表层目标：法律上的胜诉

一场诉讼，最直接、最基础的底层目标，就是：赢。

实现客户在本案中的核心诉权，拿下胜诉判决，这是诉讼律师的立身之本，也往往是委托人最朴素、最迫切的期待。

秉持这一目标，律师的立场和结论天然具有某种倾向性。我们的工作，固然需要以中立、全面的事实挖掘与法律研判为基础，但落脚点远不止于此——更是将零散的、碎片化的客观事实，梳理成对客户最有利的完整叙事；将海量的法律检索与案例研究成果，转化为对客户最有力的专业论证。哪怕，那条路表面上看起来近乎不可能。

正因如此，在日常的案例研讨、团队头脑风暴中，我们反复追问、彼此拷问的，永远是同一句话：“还有空间吗？”

这份立场先行的职业坚守，不断倒逼我们一次次完成从“绝无可能”到“峰回路转”的专业突破。以下几个真实的办案场景，足以窥见这场“灵魂追问”的执业日常：

02 深层目标：商业上的最优解

而诉讼代理更深层次的价值，早已超越个案的胜负本身。在我们经手的大量商事案件中，委托人的诉求从来不止于一纸胜诉判决，更承载着长远的商业布局与利益平衡。诉讼由此成为服务其整体商业战略的关键抓手，这也要求诉讼律师跳出单一的法律技术思维，兼具商业视野与全局战略思维。

可以说，民商事争议的法庭之上，目之所及的攻防，未必是案件的全貌；未曾看见的考量，往往藏着委托人更深层次的核心利益诉求。

03 不断追问：诉讼律师的破局之道

从法律层面的极致胜诉，到商业层面的长效共赢，两个层次的目标交织并行，构成了诉讼律师工作的完整底色，也让“还有空间吗”这句追问，有了更厚重、更深远的意义。

这句追问，从来不是简单的诉讼技巧探寻。

它是诉讼律师对专业边界的持续挑战——每一次“绝无可能”的背后，都可能藏着一条尚未被挖掘的破局路径；

它是诉讼律师对委托人权益的全面守护——不止于对胜诉结果的单一执念，不止于法庭上的唇枪舌剑，更在于读懂案件背后的商业逻辑，在法律规则与现实需求之间，为客户寻求全局最优解；

它更是诉讼律师对职业使命的永恒信仰——我们始终清醒，自己并非洞悉真相的神明，只是坚守委托人立场的法律践行者。

正因如此，我们才要不断追问、不断突破、不断在不可能中创造可能。“还有空间吗”这句叩问，从来没有终局答案。它始终贯穿我们执业生涯的始终，成为每一位诉讼律师破局前行的永恒指引。

These two lines from the drama Legal High have been deeply ingrained in my heart since my student days. However, it is only after truly entering the legal profession that I have come to understand the daily, unceasing self-inquiry hidden behind those words, a question every litigation lawyer asks themselves:

"Is there still room?"

Through this relentless self-inquiry and the sharpening experience of practical combat, I have gradually distilled the core objectives of litigation representation into two mutually reinforcing and progressively deeper dimensions.

01 Surface Objective: Legal Victory

The most direct and basic underlying goal of a lawsuit is: to win.

Securing the client's core claims in the instant case and obtaining a favorable judgment is the foundation of a litigation lawyer's practice and often the client's most straightforward and urgent expectation.

With this objective in mind, the lawyer's position and conclusions naturally have a certain inclination. Our work, while certainly grounded in a neutral and comprehensive factual investigation and legal analysis, goes further—weaving scattered, fragmented objective facts into a coherent narrative most favorable to the client; transforming the results of extensive legal research and case law analysis into the strongest professional arguments for the client. Even if that path seems almost impossible on the surface.

This is precisely why, in our daily case discussions and team brainstorming sessions, we repeatedly ask each other the same question: "Is there still room?"

This professional commitment, which prioritizes the client's position, constantly pushes us to achieve breakthroughs, turning the "absolutely impossible" into a "favorable turn." The following real case scenarios offer a glimpse into this professional daily life driven by such "soul-searching":

Faced with an unfavorable final arbitral award explicitly ordering the respondent to return the original property, how do we argue that the respondent is not required to return the fruits of the property, while respecting the res judicata effect of the award?

Faced with a case originating in the 1990s, where the statute of limitations barrier seemed insurmountable, how do we reconstruct the case narrative and defer the starting point for the statute of limitations through in-depth evidence collection and legal deconstruction?

When defending a private lending dispute, how do we break through the inherent understanding of the statutory interest rate cap to minimize the client's compensation liability—can we strive for a full interest exemption? Can we achieve a set-off against the principal?

02 Deeper Objective: The Optimal Business Solution

The deeper value of litigation representation has long transcended the victory or defeat of an individual case. In many commercial cases we handle, the client's demands go far beyond obtaining a favorable judgment; they are embedded in long-term business strategies and balancing of interests. Litigation thus becomes a critical tool serving their overall commercial strategy, requiring litigation lawyers to look beyond narrow legal technical thinking and possess business vision and strategic thinking.

In one commercial case, it appeared on the surface to be an ordinary contract dispute, but the core issue was a battle between shareholders for corporate control. Our work was not just about winning this contract lawsuit but also about leveraging the pace of litigation and evidence disclosure strategies to coordinate with the client's business negotiation schedule, securing the maximum initiative in the power struggle.

In another case with multiple co-defendants, we could have achieved full exemption for our client through the most straightforward legal path. However, because our client still had long-term business cooperation needs with the other co-defendants, after thorough communication and confirmation of their demands, we proactively relinquished some advantageous legal arguments and chose a more circuitous and difficult line of reasoning. This approach safeguarded the client's core interests while preserving commercial space for future cooperation.

Beyond these, strategic appeals, using litigation to promote negotiation, and other practical maneuvers all reflect our commitment to flexibly and professionally meeting diverse client demands within the legal framework.

It can be said that in the courtroom of commercial dispute resolution, the visible offensive and defensive maneuvers often do not represent the full picture of the case. The unseen considerations often conceal the client's deeper core interests.

03 The Constant Inquiry: The Litigation Lawyer's Path to Breakthrough

From achieving ultimate victory at the legal level to fostering long-term, win-win outcomes at the business level, these two intertwined objectives form the complete foundation of a litigation lawyer's work. They also give the question "Is there still room?" a more profound and significant meaning.

This question has never been merely about exploring simple litigation techniques.

It represents the litigation lawyer's continuous challenge to the boundaries of their profession —behind every "absolutely impossible" scenario, there may lie an undiscovered path to a breakthrough.

It represents the litigation lawyer's comprehensive protection of the client's rights and interests —not just a fixation on winning, not just courtroom debates, but also understanding the business logic behind the case and seeking the globally optimal solution for the client at the intersection of legal rules and practical needs.

More importantly, it represents the litigation lawyer's eternal faith in their professional mission —we are always aware that we are not gods who know the truth, but legal practitioners who stand firmly by our client's position.

That's why we must keep questioning, keep pushing boundaries, and keep creating possibilities from the impossible. The inquiry "Is there still room?" has no final answer. It runs through our entire professional lives, becoming the eternal guide for every litigation lawyer on their path to breakthrough.

“我们不需要成为一样的人”

在我初入团队、还是个懵懵懂懂的实习生那年，团队年终总结会上，一位很受尊敬的前辈，说了这样一句话，我一直记到现在：

“我们不需要成为一样的人。”

后来，这句话成为了我观察诉讼律师这个群体的取景框，也成为了我职业成长路上，最核心的行动指引。

01 风格各异的群体

曾几何时，当我告诉身边人自己打算成为一名诉讼律师时，收到的大多是善意的提醒与质疑：“干这行，不得是天生社牛才行？”“做律师，不是得天天应酬喝酒吗？”……

事实上，不止大众有这样的固有认知，即便是刚入团队的我，也抱有同样的偏见。在许多人的固有想象里，诉讼律师这个群体，似乎永远被贴着同质化的标签：要长袖善舞，能自如周旋于各类社交场合；要口若悬河，在法庭上自带不怒自威的强势气场；要天生社牛，能快速与所有人打成一片……仿佛不满足这些标准，就注定成不了一名合格的诉讼律师。

记得拿到正式offer那天，午餐时我仍满心困惑，忍不住问带教律师们：“i人真的可以当律师吗？”带教们非常笃定地回答我：“i人只是性格内向，不代表不会工作，更不代表做不好专业。”也就那天我才知道，我满心仰望、始终视作行业标杆的这个团队，几乎全员都是i人。可从来没有一位客户或同行，会质疑他们不是优秀律师。

在后来日复一日的并肩作战、深度协作里，我慢慢读懂了这群i人律师独有的执业之道，更渐渐看清，那些曾被我视作“短板”的内向特质，恰恰是他们深耕专业的铠甲与底气：是对客户情绪与潜在需求的深度觉知力；是不争无谓之辞，却能一语切中要害的专业定力；是对案件与事实本身的极度专注；是剥离了无效社交、直抵案件核心的深度沟通能力……

而当我在越来越多的案件里摸爬滚打，将“取景框”从团队内部延伸至更广阔的诉讼律师群体，见到越来越多的行业前辈后，我逐渐发现：优秀的诉讼律师从不是同一个模子刻出的工业品，而是各有风骨、各具光芒的独特存在。

更有意思的是，优秀的律师并不会被单一的风格标签困住。同一个人，面对不同的案件、不同的客户，完全可以展现出不同的面向：该强硬时寸步不让，该柔软时耐心倾听，该理性时冷静抽丝剥茧，该调和时妥帖沟通。我想，这种收放自如的姿态切换，正是岁月与实战经验带给他们的专业与沉淀。

回过头再看，我才愈发读懂前辈那句“我们不需要成为一样的人”的真正分量。诉讼律师这个群体，本就该是百花齐放的模样，从来不该被统一的性格标签、千篇一律的风格模板所定义。

02 内核同频的六边形战士

真正入行后，借着前辈那句“我们不需要成为一样的人”，我逐渐找到了它的下半句：“但我们拥护同样的事业与信念。”

在汇仲，律师们虽然风格各异、各有锋芒，但让大家并肩同行、汇聚到一起的，是一份高度同频的职业内核——对专业极致的敬畏、对客户绝对的负责。

在这份共同内核的驱动下，每一位初入职场的诉讼律师，通过投身真实的法律实务、经历一轮又一轮案件的打磨，都会在执业历练中获得脱胎换骨的成长，一步步构建起属于自己的全维度能力圈。在案件的代理全流程中，逐渐把自己打磨成“六边形战士”。

除了专业能力的打磨，心态的淬炼同样是律师成长的必修课。从容应对变局、临事保持冷静，多线程任务的无缝切换、突发难题的紧急处置……每一个意外，都是一次次实打实的成长历练。很多曾以为自己跨不过去的难关，回头再看，早已是“轻舟已过万重山”。

03 不要给自己设限

我们常常会被“i人不适合做律师”“女生不适合做律师”这样的标签困住，会觉得只有伪装成某种固定模板，才能成为一名好律师。于是，许多人在入行前便自我审视、自我怀疑，甚至自我劝退。

但前辈那句“我们不需要成为一样的人”，以及这些年的观察都在告诉我：这个群体远远比我们想象的要丰富，而我们自己，也远远比想象中更有潜力。

性格、性别、风格……从来不是职业的天花板。真正决定我们能走多远的，是内心的职业信仰与外在的技能束。能否在纷乱的变局中建立秩序，在突发状况面前稳住心神、快速找到破局方案——这份临事不乱的定力、刻进骨子里的专业素养、对当事人的绝对责任心，以及对每一个案件、每一份委托的极致追求，才是一名诉讼律师最核心的职业心力——也是汇仲律师们，共同的、不变的内核。

In my first year as a rookie intern in the team, during the year-end summary meeting, a highly respected senior said a sentence I've remembered ever since:"We don't need to be the same kind of person."

Later, this sentence became my lens for observing the litigation lawyer community and my core guiding principle on my own professional growth path.

01 A Community with Diverse Styles

When I told people around me that I planned to become a litigation lawyer, I mostly received well-intentioned reminders and doubts: "Aren't you supposed to be a natural social butterfly for this?" "Don't lawyers have to socialize and drink every day?"

In fact, it's not just the public who holds these fixed perceptions. Even I held the same bias when I first joined the team. In many people's inherent imagination, litigation lawyers always seem to be labeled uniformly: they must be smooth operators, able to navigate various social situations with ease; they must be eloquent, projecting an undeniable aura of authority in court; they must be naturally outgoing, able to quickly connect with everyone... as if failing to meet these standards means you can never be a qualified litigation lawyer.

I remember the day I got my official offer. Over lunch, still full of doubts, I couldn't help asking my supervising attorneys: "Can an introvert really be a lawyer?" They replied with great certainty: "Being an introvert just means you're quieter by nature. It doesn't mean you can't work, and it certainly doesn't mean you can't do excellent professional work." It was that very day I learned that this team, which I so admired and always regarded as an industry benchmark, was almost entirely composed of introverts. Yet, no client or peer has ever doubted they are outstanding lawyers.

Later, through countless days of fighting side-by-side and deep collaboration, I gradually came to understand the unique professional path of this group of introverted lawyers. I also began to see clearly that the introverted traits I once considered "shortcomings" were precisely their armor and confidence for deep professional cultivation: a deep awareness of client emotions and underlying needs; the professional composure to avoid futile arguments yet strike the core issue with one incisive point; an intense focus on the case and the facts themselves; and the ability to strip away superficial socializing for deep communication that goes straight to the heart of the case.

As I navigated through more and more cases and extended my "lens" from within the team to the broader litigation lawyer community, meeting more and more seniors in the field, I gradually discovered: Excellent litigation lawyers are not industrial products stamped from the same mold. They are unique entities, each with their own character and brilliance.

Some lawyers are like warm Hetian jade—unassuming yet substantial. In court, they don't seek to be sharp and showy. They speak at a steady, measured pace with clear logic, dismantling the opponent's offensive and persuading the judge with seamless reasoning and tightly interwoven facts.

Some lawyers are like unsheathed swords—quiet and reserved in daily life, but commanding the courtroom the moment they stand up. They can convey core demands through precise emotional appeal and also keenly detect logical flaws in the opponent. They are sharp but not impulsive, with every move aimed at the heart of the case.

Some lawyers are like precise nautical compasses—always calm, restrained, and directionally decisive. Unswayed by emotions, relying on rigorous attention to factual details and legal provisions, they can unerringly pinpoint the core dispute in the most complex cases and identify the optimal path to resolution.

Some lawyers are like gentle spring breezes—warm and soft yet firm in their boundaries. When interacting with clients, they lean in to listen to their anxieties, translating obscure legal principles into plain language. When facing adversarial parties, they use appropriate communication to diffuse tension, adding a layer of empathy and warmth to the cold letter of the law.

More interestingly, excellent lawyers are not confined by a single stylistic label. The same person, facing different cases and different clients, can entirely present different facets: unyielding when toughness is required, patiently listening when softness is needed, calmly analyzing when rationality is paramount, and skillfully mediating when reconciliation is the goal. I believe this ability to switch flexibly is a testament to the professionalism and depth honed by years of experience.

Looking back now, I truly appreciate the weight of the senior's words: "We don't need to be the same kind of person." The litigation lawyer community should always be a garden of diverse flowers, never to be defined by uniform personality labels or cookie-cutter stylistic templates.

02 Six-Sided Warriors with a Resonant Core

After truly entering the profession, I gradually found the complementary second half to that sentence: "But we champion the same cause and the same beliefs."

At Huizhong, although the lawyers have diverse styles and distinct strengths, what brings them together and makes them march side-by-side is a highly resonant professional core—an awe for the ultimate in professionalism and absolute responsibility towards clients.

Driven by this shared core, every young lawyer entering the profession, through immersion in real legal practice and repeated case sharpening, will undergo a fundamental transformation in their professional training. They will steadily build their own comprehensive capability set, gradually honing themselves into "six-sided warriors" throughout the entire case handling process.

During the initial client engagement phase, the challenge is to quickly win client trust among competing firms, clearly understand their core demands, and professionally showcase the team's capabilities in a short time.

During the fact-finding phase, the test is the ability to keenly grasp key information, digest voluminous files, quickly absorb and integrate information, and use divergent thinking and associations to guide the client in uncovering more "clues" that could influence the case's outcome.

During the legal writing phase, a solid legal foundation and precise writing skills are essential. Every sentence and every argument must be crafted to precisely reach the audience and form an effective persuasion.

During the courtroom proceedings, beyond clear and fluent oral expression and well-controlled pacing, the situation demands exceptional adaptability. The lawyer must precisely capture the opponent's logical loopholes, effectively "using their own spear to attack their shield," and ultimately achieve the best possible court outcome.

Beyond honing professional skills, mental fortitude is also a crucial part of a lawyer's growth. The ability to calmly handle changes, remain composed under pressure, seamlessly switch between multiple tasks, and make emergency decisions when unexpected problems arise—every unforeseen event is a real-life training opportunity. Many difficulties that once seemed insurmountable, in hindsight, have long been left behind like "light boats passing ten thousand mountains."

03 Don't Limit Yourself

We are often constrained by labels like "introverts aren't suited for law" or "women aren't suited for law." We feel that only by fitting a certain template can we become good lawyers. Consequently, many people engage in self-scrutiny, self-doubt, and even self-elimination before even entering the profession.

But the senior's words—"We don't need to be the same kind of person"—and my observations over the years, all tell me: this community is far richer than we imagine, and we ourselves are far more potential-filled than we realize.

Personality, gender, style... these are never the ceiling of a career. What truly determines how far we can go is our inner professional faith and our external skill set. The ability to establish order in chaotic situations, to stay calm and find a solution under pressure—this composure, this deeply ingrained professionalism, this absolute sense of responsibility to the client, and this relentless pursuit of the best outcome for every case and every mandate—these are the core professional qualities of a litigation lawyer. And these are the shared, unchanging core of Huizhong lawyers.

写在最后

“欢迎来到真实世界”，是我们踏入诉讼战场时，必须直面的最本真的模样；

“还有空间吗”，是我们奔赴每一场决战，始终坚守的战术与信念；

“我们不需要成为一样的人”，是我们身为战士与指挥官，最珍贵的底色与本心。

以上这些，不过是我作为一名入行不久的职场新人，尚且稚嫩的思考与归纳。权当给所有对这个行业怀有好奇、抱有偏见，或是入行门前心存犹疑、尚且观望的法律萌新们，一份微不足道的参考。

它未必全然正确，却字字出于真诚。这是我从两年多前的课堂出发，一路走到今天的所思所感；而它也会像文件夹里那篇被修改多次的两万余字法律分析意见一样，始终保持开放与谦卑，坦然静候着被补充、被修正、甚至被彻底推翻的那一天。

走到今天，我也曾在无数个写文书的深夜、开庭前的凌晨，迷茫过、动摇过，一遍遍追问自己当初为何要踏入这个行业。整理这篇文章时，手边恰好翻到这样一句话，忽然有了一个答案：

“每个人都蕴藏着未被发现的潜能和价值，自我认知的核心，是找到挖掘自身优势、发挥自身价值的方式。”

我想，诉讼律师这个行业，本就是这样一个无限可能的自我试验场。它从来不是一条轻松的坦途，更没有一套放之四海而皆准的成功模板。这条路注定很难，但总有那么一些瞬间——或是在海量的材料里发现了那份至关重要的证据，或是在庭前准备中精准预测对方的攻防思路，或是终于撕掉标签、突破自我设限，活成了更舒展、更强大的自己——都会让你无比笃定：

所有的全力以赴，都值得。

In Conclusion

"Welcome to the real world" is the truest form of the battlefield we must face when we enter litigation.

"Is there still room?" is the strategy and belief we hold steadfastly when we go into every decisive battle.

"We don't need to be the same kind of person" is our most precious foundation and true heart as warriors and commanders.

These are merely my fledgling thoughts and summaries as a newcomer to the profession. Consider this a small, modest point of reference for all legal rookies who are curious about, harbor biases towards, are hesitating at the doorstep of, or are just observing this industry.

It may not be entirely correct, but it comes from a place of sincerity. These are the thoughts and feelings I've gathered on my journey from the classroom over two years ago to today. And like that legal analysis document of over 20,000 words, revised many times in the folder, it remains open, humble, and ready to be supplemented, revised, or even completely overturned one day.

Having come this far, I too have spent countless late nights writing documents and early mornings before hearings feeling lost and shaken, repeatedly asking myself why I entered this profession. While compiling this article, I happened to come across a sentence that suddenly gave me an answer:

"Everyone harbors undiscovered potential and value. The core of self-awareness is finding the way to tap into your own strengths and realize your own value."

I believe the litigation profession itself is such a boundless proving ground for self-discovery. It has never been an easy road, and there is no universal recipe for success. This path is destined to be challenging. But there are always those moments—discovering that crucial piece of evidence in a sea of materials, accurately predicting the opponent's strategy during trial preparation, or finally tearing off labels, breaking through self-imposed limits, and living as a more expansive and stronger version of yourself—that will make you utterly certain:

It was all worth it.

*本文图片由AI参与生成

Images in this article were generated with AI assistance.

作者介绍