An Expert Witness Guide to Justice Systems: China 

By Noah Bolmer

China’s approach to expert evidence is shaped by a justice system that treats expertise as an administrative function rather than an adversarial tool. Most expert witnesses work within state‑affiliated appraisal institutions, and their role is defined by formal registration, standardized methods, and written reports that are submitted directly to the court. This structure is orderly, centralized, and focused on compliance with established procedures rather than on competing interpretations. 

Judicial Structure 

China’s judicial system operates within a civil law framework that assigns judges broad responsibility for shaping the evidentiary record. In civil, criminal, and administrative cases, judges determine when technical input is necessary and identify the institutions authorized to provide it, whereby material enters the case through formal appraisals rather than through party‑driven presentation. 

The system is organized into three principal divisions: 

• Civil courts hear disputes involving private rights and commercial relationships.  

• Criminal courts adjudicate offenses investigated by law‑enforcement bodies and brought forward for prosecution.  

• Administrative courts review decisions made by government agencies and resolve conflicts arising under public law.  

Alongside the courts sits the procuratorate, a state body that combines prosecutorial authority with responsibility for supervising the legality of judicial and investigative actions. Its oversight extends to procedural compliance in areas such as detention, evidence handling, and—when relevant—the formal requirements governing appraisals. While it does not direct the court’s fact‑finding, its supervisory role adds an additional layer of institutional review not present in many systems. 

Judges, attorneys, and procurators follow separate professional tracks. Judges enter the judiciary through national examinations and receive training in institutions supervised by the Supreme People’s Court, moving directly into roles that provide procedural supervision and the evaluation of written materials. Attorneys qualify through the bar examination, where their experience centers on client representation and legal argument. Procurators form a third cohort: they are state legal officials who serve as public prosecutors but also exercise supervision powers, including reviewing arrests, overseeing aspects of police investigations, and challenging procedural errors by courts or agencies.  

Background 

The country’s modern approach to expert evidence developed against a legal history marked by interruption and reconstruction. During the Republican era, courts operated under civil codes influenced by continental models, and expert input was drawn from academic and professional communities in a manner consistent with other civil law jurisdictions. After 1949, the new government introduced institutions modeled on Soviet practice, and technical evaluations were handled within state‑run bodies, though the system remained uneven and incomplete. Formal courts and procedural rules were then largely suspended during the Cultural Revolution, and expert participation disappeared as legal institutions were replaced by political mechanisms. The reform period beginning in 1978 reintroduced codified law and professional adjudication, and the state rebuilt its system for handling technical questions by creating licensed appraisal centers. 

The Appraisal System 

China’s contemporary approach to expert evidence is organized around a network of licensed appraisal institutions that provide technical findings across civil, criminal, and administrative cases. These organizations operate under regulatory frameworks that define their permitted areas of work, approved methods, and reporting obligations. Many are attached to public laboratories, hospitals, or research institutes, and their role is to supply evaluations that meet statutory requirements rather than offer opinions shaped by individual expertise. This institutional model reflects the administrative character of the legal system, which places a premium on uniform procedures and standardized sources of technical knowledge. 

Appraisal institutions are authorized and administered at the provincial level. Licensing rules specify the qualifications of personnel, the facilities required for particular types of analysis, and the internal procedures that must be followed when conducting evaluations. These requirements create a formal boundary around who may produce expert findings for use in litigation. When a court determines that a technical question must be addressed, it directs the request to one of these licensed institutions, which assigns staff internally. The resulting report is prepared in accordance with the institution’s approved methods and submitted to the court in writing. 

Key features: 

• Licensed institutions that meet statutory requirements for personnel, equipment, and internal procedures. 

• Standardized methods established through administrative regulations to ensure consistency across evaluations. 

• Internal assignment of personnel, with institutions selecting the staff who conduct the appraisal rather than the court or the opposing sides. 

• Written reports that follow prescribed formats and address the technical questions identified by the court. 

• Periodic review and oversight to confirm that institutions continue to meet regulatory standards. 

While attorneys may comment on the content of an appraisal or hire outside supplementary explanation (by expert assistants), they do not select the institution or influence the personnel who conduct the evaluation. Their engagement with expert material occurs after the report has been completed and submitted to the court. 

This institutional arrangement shapes the character of expert evidence in China. Technical findings are treated as products of regulated organizations rather than as the work of independent specialists, and the court’s role is to determine whether the appraisal complies with the procedural rules governing its preparation. Questions about methodology are addressed through the regulatory framework rather than through adversarial challenge. The appraisal system thus serves as the primary mechanism for incorporating specialized knowledge into judicial proceedings and provides the foundation for the court‑appointed model. 

Gaps in the Appraisal System 

The appraisal system covers a wide range of technical fields, but it does not extend to every type of specialized knowledge that may arise in litigation. When a case involves a topic that falls outside the licensed appraisal categories, the court does not appoint an individual specialist to fill the gap. The system is not designed to identify or vet standalone experts, and technical findings must come from institutions that meet the regulatory requirements for appraisal work. As a result, certain forms of expertise—particularly those tied to niche industries, specialized practices, or emerging fields—do not enter the case through the formal appraisal mechanism. 

In these cases, judges rely on alternative sources of information including written materials, industry guidelines, academic publications, or statements from relevant organizations. The litigants may also submit opinions from expert assistant specialists they have retained, but these submissions are treated as ordinary documentary evidence rather than as expert reports. They do not carry the status of an appraisal, and the court evaluates them alongside other materials in the record. The absence of a licensed appraisal does not prevent the court from resolving the issue, but it changes the form that technical input can take. 

Scope 

When the court initiates an appraisal, it issues a written mandate that defines the technical questions to be addressed and specifies the boundaries of the evaluation. The scope is tied to the categories authorized for appraisal work, and the institution must conduct its analysis within those parameters. Judges may revise or expand the mandate if new issues emerge, but the inquiry remains anchored to the procedural framework governing licensed institutions. The appraisal personnel are expected to apply the methods approved for their field, working independently while remaining focused on the issues identified by the court.  

The resulting report is submitted in writing under the name of the appraisal institution and becomes part of the case record. It is provided to the respective sides, who may comment on its contents or request clarification. Communication between the institution and the litigants is limited and typically mediated by the court. Direct contact is discouraged, and the personnel who conducted the appraisal do not meet privately with either side. 

Privately Commissioned Responses 

When a party disagrees with the conclusions of an appraisal, it may request permission to submit a counter‑analysis. This can resemble a rebuttal report in adversarial systems, but its effect is constrained by the structure of Chinese procedure. Aparty‑commissioned critique may draw attention to methodological concerns, identify inconsistencies, or introduce additional data, yet it does not displace the appraisal itself. Judges may consider the submission if it clarifies a technical issue or exposes a gap in the institutional report, but they are not required to engage with it in detail. The appraisal remains the primary source of technical findings, and any external commentary is evaluated against that baseline. 

Payment 

Payment for appraisal work in China is governed by procedural rules and administrative regulations. The court determines the fee based on the type of appraisal, the methods required, and the institution’s approved rate structure. One or both of the disputing sides may be ordered to advance the cost, depending on who requested the appraisal or how the technical issue arose during the proceedings. These payments are treated as litigation expenses and may be shifted at the conclusion of the case under the ordinary cost‑allocation rules. Because the appraisal is performed by a licensed institution rather than an individual expert, the fee is tied to the institution’s authorized schedule rather than to personal negotiation or market rates. 

Appraisal personnel do not discuss compensation with the litigants, and financial arrangements are handled entirely through the court and the institution. Rates vary across fields—medical evaluations, forensic analyses, engineering assessments, and accounting appraisals each have their own administrative benchmarks—but the structure is designed to keep payment standardized and procedurally neutral. The institution receives the fee directly, and the individuals who conduct the appraisal are compensated through their employment relationship rather than through case‑specific arrangements. 

Structural Contrast 

In most jurisdictions—even those that rely heavily on court appointment—the expert is still conceived as a person whose professional credentials justify their role. China reverses this: the appraisal center is the expert, and the individuals inside it function as technicians operating within a regulated framework. This institutionalization shapes every stage of the process, from how the inquiry is defined to how the findings enter the record. 

A second distinctive feature is the regulatory basis for neutrality. Instead of relying on professional independence, adversarial challenge, or judicial oversight—as in France or the UK—China enforces neutrality through licensing, standardized methods, and administrative supervision. The system assumes that objectivity is achieved by controlling procedures, not by balancing competing perspectives or relying on individual judgment. 

Finally, in many systems, competing experts or supplementary reports can meaningfully influence the court’s understanding of a technical issue. In China, litigant-commissioned critiques remain secondary: they may highlight concerns, but they do not displace the appraisal or carry equivalent procedural weight. The appraisal system remains the authoritative source of technical findings, and the court evaluates all other material against that institutional baseline. 

Sidebar: Chinese System Features 

• People’s Assessors Like in Japan, many trials include lay assessors who sit alongside professional judges. They participate in fact‑finding but do not function like jurors; their role is integrated into the judicial panel, and they deliberate jointly with judges. 

• Remote Appraisals Technical evaluations are often conducted off‑site by appraisal institutions that never appear in court. The entire expert component of a case may unfold without any in‑person testimony. 

• High Settlement Rates As in the US, judges frequently encourage mediation, sometimes multiple times during a case. Many civil disputes resolve through court‑facilitated settlement rather than judgment. 

• Limited Oral Cross‑Examination Even when witnesses or appraisal personnel appear, questioning is judge‑led. Party‑driven cross‑examination is narrow and often confined to clarifying points already in the record. 

Conclusion 

The Chinese approach to expert evidence reflects a system built around institutional control and procedural regularity. Party‑commissioned critiques remain secondary, and in‑court examination is limited to clarifying points that cannot be resolved on paper. Expertise functions less as a contested element of advocacy than as a regulated component of the judicial record, shaped by administrative oversight and evaluated within a framework that prioritizes consistency. 

For over 30 years, Round Table Group has been connecting litigators with skilled and qualified expert witnesses. If you are interested in being considered for expert witness opportunities, contact us at 202-908-4500 for more information or sign up now!