Executive Summary
On 24 April 2026, during the first session of the 16th National Assembly, Vietnam adopted Resolution No. 24/2026/QH16 on the pilot implementation of the public lawyer institution (“Resolution 24“), which takes effect on 1 October 2026. Resolution 24 introduces, for the first time, a cadre of licensed in-house public lawyers embedded within state agencies and state-owned enterprises (“SOEs“) who are authorised and licensed to perform legal work protecting the lawful rights and interests of the State. The regime will be piloted for a two-year period, from 1 October 2026 to 30 September 2028, across eight ministries and ten provincial-level localities. We have previously reported on the introduction of a public lawyer regime in Vietnam. To read more about this, please see our November 2025 Legal Update titled “Vietnam Moves Toward a Public Lawyer Regime: Key Features of the Draft Resolution on Public Lawyer Regime and its Implications for Governance & Dispute Risks“.
In July 2026, the Ministry of Justice released for public consultation a draft Decree setting out the detailed provisions and implementation measures for Resolution 24 (“Draft Decree“). The Draft Decree was prepared under an expedited legislative procedure so that it can take effect alongside Resolution 24 on 1 October 2026. The Draft Decree establishes the operational framework of the new regime, covering lawyer training, apprenticeship, qualification examinations, licensing, admission to the Bar, remuneration, disciplinary procedures, complaint-handling mechanisms, and the overall management of public lawyers.
This Update provides a high-level overview of the key features of the Draft Decree, and highlights its practical implications for state agencies, SOEs, and legal service providers in Vietnam.
For businesses, particularly SOEs, foreign investors and law firms, the Draft Decree provides the first practical guidance on how the new public lawyer regime is expected to operate in practice. It also confirms that private law firms will continue to play an important role in complex and cross-border matters where external legal expertise is required.
Key Features
Training and Probationary Pathway
The Draft Decree largely follows the existing framework for lawyer training and apprenticeship under the Law on Lawyers, subject to adaptations reflecting the specific nature of public legal service. In most cases, holders of a bachelor’s or master’s degree in law are required to:
- complete a 12-month lawyer training programme, upon successful completion of which they are awarded a Certificate of Lawyer Training;
- complete a six-month apprenticeship at a law firm, arranged either by agreement with the firm or, where no such arrangement is made, through a referral by the provincial Department of Justice; and
- pass a qualifying examination administered by the Ministry of Justice (“MOJ“).
Successful candidates are issued with a Lawyer Practising Certificate by MOJ and may commence practice immediately upon its issuance. They must then become members of a Bar Association within ten working days in order to obtain a Lawyer’s Card.
The Draft Decree exempts certain categories of applicants from the lawyer training requirement. These include professors, associate professors and holders of doctoral degrees in law, as well as former senior- and intermediate-level judges, procurators, investigators and enforcement officers. The exemption also extends to senior- and principal-level civil servants, legal officers, inspectors, researchers and law lecturers, with equivalent military and police ranks to be designated by the Ministers of National Defence and Public Security.
For applicants falling within these exempt categories, the apprenticeship period is reduced to four months for intermediate- and principal-level officials, or six months for holders of a lawyer training certificate who have at least ten years’ experience as legal specialists.
Centralised Bar Examination Administered by MOJ
The qualifying examination for public lawyers will be administered directly by MOJ, rather than by the Vietnam Bar Federation (“VBF“), which ordinarily administers the qualifying examination for lawyers under the general regime. According to the Submission Report, this departure is intended to accommodate the compressed implementation timeline of the pilot programme while allowing the State to retain direct oversight of the qualification process for public lawyers. The examination panel will nevertheless include representatives of MOJ, VBF and other relevant agencies and organisations. The examination will cover political awareness, professional ethics, rules of professional conduct, and practical legal knowledge.
Scope of Work and Conflict Safeguards
Public lawyers may perform legal work only within the State sector. As defined by Resolution 24 and further elaborated in the Draft Decree, their mandate includes participation in legal proceedings, handling complex legal matters, acting as authorised representatives, and providing legal advice to protect the lawful rights and interests of the State.
Notably, where a pilot agency lacks sufficient in-house legal capacity, the Draft Decree permits it to request the secondment of a public lawyer from another pilot agency or to seek a referral from MOJ. In practical terms, this creates a shared pool of State legal counsel across participating agencies.
The Draft Decree also introduces conflict-of-interest safeguards. A managing agency may refuse a secondment request where the lawyer’s independence or objectivity cannot be ensured. Correspondingly, a public lawyer must decline an assignment on the same grounds and is entitled to maintain an independent professional opinion.
Remuneration and Incentives
The Draft Decree defines a working session as four hours and specifies the activities that qualify as billable working time, which must be certified by the agency engaging the public lawyer. Funding allocations are divided between:
- the managing agency which funds the monthly allowance, apprenticeship fees, Bar admission and membership fees; and
- the agency engaging the lawyer which funds case-handling remuneration and other costs tied to the specific matter.
For public lawyers employed by SOEs, the Draft Decree contemplates a monthly support amount linked to the salary agreed upon in their labour contract, payable by the enterprise itself. In addition to this monthly support, public lawyers are entitled to benefits broadly comparable to those available to civil servants, public employees and members of the armed forces engaged in legislative drafting and legal affairs under National Assembly Resolution No. 197/2025/QH15.
Engaging Private Law Firms for Complex or Cross-Border Matters
One of the most commercially significant aspects of the Draft Decree is its express recognition that pilot agencies may engage external law firms in appropriate circumstances. Under the Draft Decree, a pilot agency may engage a law firm under a legal services contract to work alongside its public lawyers in the following circumstances:
- where a matter demands specialist expertise the in-house corps cannot yet supply;
- where the volume of complex matters exceeds its capacity; or
- where a complex matter involves foreign elements.
The selection process follows the special-case contractor selection mechanism under Vietnam’s procurement legislation, applied by analogy to the existing framework governing the engagement of external counsel to represent the Vietnamese State or State agencies before foreign courts and international tribunals. In these engagements, the public lawyer takes the lead and the retained firm’s lawyers act in a coordinating role. Where disagreements arise between the public lawyer and the external law firm, the matter is escalated to the head of the engaging agency for final determination.
Discipline, Certificate Revocation and Complaints
Because a public lawyer simultaneously holds the status of a civil servant, public employee or officer and a member of a Bar Association, misconduct may give rise to two parallel accountability regimes. On the one hand, the lawyer remains subject to disciplinary action, administrative sanctions or criminal liability under the laws governing public officials. On the other hand, breaches of the Rules of Professional Conduct remain subject to disciplinary proceedings under the VBF’s Charter, with the managing agency and the relevant Bar Association required to coordinate in handling such matters.
MOJ may revoke, reissue or replace a Lawyer Practising Certificate within prescribed statutory timeframes (generally five to fifteen working days). In addition, any individual may lodge a complaint concerning the conduct of a public lawyer under the Law on Complaints and the VBF’s Charter.
Concluding Words
The Draft Decree represents a significant institutional shift in how the Vietnamese State organises its internal legal capacity, moving from reliance on unlicensed in-house legal personnel towards a professionally qualified corps of public lawyers embedded within the State apparatus. As the Draft Decree remains under public consultation, its final provisions may continue to evolve before its scheduled commencement on 1 October 2026.
For law firms and in-house counsel dealing with Vietnamese public-sector counterparties, the reform signals that state agencies, public organisations and SOEs will increasingly be represented and advised by lawyers holding the same practising qualifications and subject to the same professional conduct standards as private-sector practitioners. At the same time, the special-case procurement mechanism for engaging external counsel in complex or cross-border matters creates a new avenue through which private practitioners, including foreign-invested law firms in Vietnam, may be retained to work alongside public lawyers on State-related mandates.
Rajah & Tann LCT Lawyers will continue to monitor legislative and regulatory developments, including the finalisation of the Draft Decree, and provide further updates as implementing measures become available.
Further Information
Please feel free to reach out to our contact partners should you have queries on the above development.
For regional litigation and resolution matters, please see Rajah & Tann Asia’s Dispute Resolution Practice for more information.
This Update was authored by Dr. Chau Huy Quang, Mr. Cao Dang Duy, and Dr. Le Hong Phuc, Of Counsel at Rajah & Tann LCT Lawyers and Lecturer at Phenikaa University.
Disclaimer
Rajah & Tann Asia is a network of member firms with local legal practices in Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam. Our Asian network also includes our regional office in China as well as regional desks focused on Brunei, Japan and South Asia. Member firms are independently constituted and regulated in accordance with relevant local requirements.
The contents of this publication are owned by Rajah & Tann Asia together with each of its member firms and are subject to all relevant protection (including but not limited to copyright protection) under the laws of each of the countries where the member firm operates and, through international treaties, other countries. No part of this publication may be reproduced, licensed, sold, published, transmitted, modified, adapted, publicly displayed, broadcast (including storage in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently for any purpose save as permitted herein) without the prior written permission of Rajah & Tann Asia or its respective member firms.
Please note also that whilst the information in this publication is correct to the best of our knowledge and belief at the time of writing, it is only intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter and should not be treated as legal advice or a substitute for specific professional advice for any particular course of action as such information may not suit your specific business and operational requirements. You should seek legal advice for your specific situation. In addition, the information in this publication does not create any relationship, whether legally binding or otherwise. Rajah & Tann Asia and its member firms do not accept, and fully disclaim, responsibility for any loss or damage which may result from accessing or relying on the information in this publication.
