In early May 2018, on a certain day, Zhiming lawyers accepted a commission from Company H to represent a major, complex, and difficult economic dispute case involving millions of yuan, and submitted the authorization to the court that same day. On an afternoon in late May, when Zhiming lawyers inquired with the court about the case's progress, they were informed that the case had already been tried in absentia in mid-May.

That same evening, Zhiming lawyer immediately verified with Company H whether the summons had been received. After receiving a negative reply, he contacted the court the very next day to request a retrial. However, the court refused, citing the courier receipt for the summons sent to Company H as evidence, and merely suggested that Company H submit supplementary materials such as its own representation or argument. Both sides held their ground.

In a disadvantaged position where our side was weak, Zhiming lawyer neither blindly followed the court's demands nor waited passively for defeat. He sternly pointed out to the relevant personnel that, according to the Civil Procedure Law and its judicial interpretations, the court's default hearing constituted a serious procedural violation and must be corrected through a retrial. The judge in question, however, made excuses and was only willing to review our written submissions. Zhiming lawyer resolutely filed a complaint with the relevant higher authorities. With the intervention of senior leadership, the court ultimately agreed to hold a proper retrial. Through a battle of wisdom and courage, Zhiming lawyer once again safeguarded the client's legal rights.