Judicial policies promote the normalization of online litigation, and Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm clarifies the boundary between electronic evidence retrieval and AI assisted sentencing

Online litigation has changed from 'emergency' to 'normal', and the rules have long been written down

Many people think that online litigation is a temporary practice left over by the epidemic, but in fact, Article 1 of the People's Court Online Litigation Rules clearly states that online litigation and offline litigation have the same legal effect. This rule is not a suggestion, it is a mandatory authorization. After its implementation in 2021, the Supreme People's Court has successively promoted the normalization of online filing, online mediation, and online court hearings. By 2026, many grassroots courts in Shenzhen will default to online summary procedure cases.

But the other side of normalization is that program rights do not diminish just because you are in court on your phone. Jurisdictional objections, evidentiary deadlines, and defense deadlines will not be relaxed just because they are online. In practice, we usually advise the parties involved that after receiving an electronically delivered subpoena, the first thing they should do is to verify the case number and the presiding judge, and the second thing is to confirm how many days are left before the deadline for presenting evidence. Don't think that online court hearings can temporarily supplement materials.

When Futian Court implemented remote court hearings, the local legal community discussed it for a while, and we can refer to the observation of Futian Court's implementation of remote court hearings to overturn the traditional court model. The controversial point at that time was equipment stability, but now it has become evidence of compliance.

Whether electronic evidence can be used depends on who will investigate and from where

Article 66 of the Civil Procedure Law lists electronic data as a statutory type of evidence, but including it does not necessarily mean that it is automatically accepted. Articles 14 and 15 of the "Several Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Evidence in Civil Litigation" list the scope of electronic data, including WeChat chat records, emails, and webpage screenshots. The key lies in Article 15, Paragraph 2: If the parties use electronic data as evidence, they shall provide the original documents. The original document includes the original carrier, as well as copies, printed copies, and other output media that can be displayed and recognized.

The problem lies here. Many parties will directly print out WeChat chat screenshots and hand them over to the court when encountering them for the first time. The judge asks where the original carrier is, but cannot answer. Screenshots can be edited, only the chat records in the original phone have metadata support. When representing contract disputes and labor disputes, Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm usually requires the parties to bring their mobile phones to the law firm, fix the chat process through screen recording, and then export the original files instead of just providing a picture.

Another easy pitfall is retrieving the subject. It involves platform backend data, bank statements, and third-party payment records, and the parties themselves cannot obtain complete data. At this point, either apply to the court for investigation and evidence collection, or apply for a lawyer's investigation order. The review of lawyer investigation orders by Shenzhen courts is becoming increasingly standardized. When applying, it is necessary to clearly state the object of retrieval, the scope of data, and the relevance to the facts to be proven. Writing too broad may result in rejection.

The deadline for presenting evidence will not be waived just because it is online, and the consequences of exceeding the deadline are very real

Article 68 of the Civil Procedure Law and Articles 101 and 102 of the Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law clearly state the consequences of overdue evidence submission: evidence provided on time due to intentional or gross negligence may not be accepted by the court; If it is not intentional or due to gross negligence, the court shall adopt it but impose a warning and fine. The entry point for submitting evidence online is very convenient, but some people delay sending it until the last day, resulting in incorrect formatting and damaged files, which are considered as not submitted.

Shenzhen Civil and Commercial Litigation LawyerIt is generally recommended to leave a buffer of at least three working days for the submission process of electronic evidence. The video files are first compressed to the size allowed by the court system, and the chat records are fixed with timestamps. Electronic data formed outside the domain also needs to be notarized and authenticated or comply with the requirements of Article 16 of the "Several Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Civil Procedure Evidence". These steps are done online, which is more time-consuming than offline, not more time-saving.

AI assisted sentencing is not AI judgment, the boundary lies in the word 'assisted'

The introduction of AI in the criminal field is more cautious. The core functions of the intelligent assisted case handling system promoted by the Supreme People's Court are case push, sentencing reference, and document correction, rather than automatic judgment generation. The final decision on sentencing remains in the hands of the collegiate bench or a sole judge. Article 61 of the Criminal Law stipulates that sentencing shall be determined based on the facts, nature, circumstances, and degree of harm to society of the crime. This set of judgments contains a lot of value measurements that AI cannot provide.

In practice,Criminal defense lawyer in ShenzhenIt is allowed and effective to use case retrieval reports to explain sentencing balance issues to the court. But using AI generated sentencing recommendations directly as the core of defense opinions carries significant risks. We have seen cases where the caliber of similar cases has been misinterpreted: sentencing standards vary in different regions and periods, and AI captured cases may include judgments that have been changed or invalidated, which are quoted without verification and weaken the credibility of the defense.

It should be emphasized that the discussion of AI assisted sentencing does not constitute a commitment to the outcome of individual cases. The facts and evidence structure of each case are different, and the sentencing conclusion must be returned to the file itself.

What should business owners and employees focus on respectively

On the business owner's side, electronic contracts, DingTalk approval processes, and enterprise WeChat records are all potential evidence. Suggest specifying the electronic delivery address and confirmation method for electronic evidence in the contract to avoid disputes where the other party denies receipt. For matters involving labor relations, attendance data and performance communication records should be regularly backed up. After an employee leaves, system permissions will be disabled, making it difficult to retrieve them.

On the worker's side, pay stubs, overtime approvals, and termination notices should be kept in their original form as much as possible. The statute of limitations for labor arbitration is one year, starting from the date of knowing or should have known that the rights have been infringed, and this period is not extended by online application. The labor and personnel dispute arbitration committees in various districts of Shenzhen have opened online application entrances, but incomplete materials will still be required to be corrected, and the time limit for correction during the correction period will be evaluated separately.

When dealing with such cases, the team of Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm will prioritize electronic evidence compliance checks before discussing substantive rights. The order is reversed, and the rest is useless. In recent years, our firm has also been paying attention to the connection between cross-border legal services and online litigation. For more information, please refer to Zhiming Law Firm's addition of international honors, official membership in the European Bar Association (AEA), and an unexpected turning point - Zhiming Law Firm was listed as a law firm in China by the US Embassy in China.

What do lawyers do in court online? It tests their preparation more than offline

Online court hearings do not have the ceremonial pressure of a courtroom, and the pace of witness testimony and cross examination is more easily interrupted. Lawyers need to test the network, cameras, microphones in advance, and prepare ways to share electronic evidence. Some courts require the display of the original carrier in court, and lawyers need to communicate with the judge's assistant in advance whether screen sharing is possible.

These details may seem trivial, but they directly affect the judge's perception of the evidence. We usually advise the parties involved to find a quiet and well lit room during online court hearings, with no irrelevant information in the background. Before giving testimony online, it is necessary to confirm that the witness is not present with the parties involved, otherwise their ability to provide evidence will be questioned.

When encountering specific cases, do three things first

Firstly, locate the original carriers of all electronic evidence, not just leaving screenshots. Secondly, check the deadline for presenting evidence and the deadline for defense, and the countdown of the online system will not deceive people. Thirdly, for cases involving criminal sentencing, seek a lawyer to conduct case searches instead of using AI tools to generate a report and appear in court.

The consultation hotline of Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm is 0755-25986969, located in Shenzhen, and appointments for face-to-face meetings can be made. The rules of online litigation are still evolving, but the underlying logic has not changed: evidence must be truthful, legal, and relevant, and procedural rights must be monitored by oneself. Both of these are held, online or offline, and it doesn't affect the outcome.

Disclaimer: The content of this article is a general interpretation of legal information and does not constitute a legal opinion on any specific case, nor does it represent a commitment to the outcome of the case. The handling of individual cases should be based on complete evidence materials and specific requirements of the competent court. It is recommended to entrust a practicing lawyer to evaluate and make a decision.

Author: Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm. Consultation hotline: 0755-25986969.