Does a US headquarters expense approval authorize reports on every employee consultation? Article 33 of Taiwan's legal ethics rules generally prohibits accepting payment from a third party, with an exception where the client has been informed and consents, and the lawyer's independent professional judgment is unaffected. Confidentiality duties to that client remain.
Identify the client and file the appointment
When an employee is a suspect, clarify whether the engagement concerns company affairs or that person's criminal defense. A company alleging harm, or other managers facing questions about responsibility, may have interests that need separate assessment.
An accused may retain defense counsel at any time under Article 27 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which extends the right to suspects investigated by police. A written appointment must be submitted. Article 30 requires submission to the prosecutor or judicial police officer before prosecution, and to the court at each instance afterward. Internal expense paperwork does not complete that procedural step.
Map the contacts. Identifying the fee approver, personal defense lawyer and company records custodian helps define why each person is contacted. The engagement should also address the scope of reporting and the client's consent.
Consent does not cure every conflict
Article 31 of the ethics rules restricts conflicted engagements. Some permit written consent after disclosure of material risks. That route is unavailable for representing both sides of the same contentious matter, whether simultaneously or successively, or for jointly representing people on one side whose interests conflict.
Company approval is not enough. If company and employee accounts diverge, reassess the engagement and whether separate counsel is needed. This does not require separate lawyers in every employer-funded case. The actual interests matter.
Rights belong to the person questioned
Article 95 requires advance information about the suspected offenses and all charges, silence, retaining counsel and legal aid where eligible, and requesting investigation of favorable evidence. A change in the charges must be communicated again. Article 100-2 applies the chapter to police questioning of suspects.
What happens when no lawyer is present? Article 95(2) requires questioning to stop immediately if the person states that defense counsel has already been retained, unless that person consents to continuing. A future intention to hire a lawyer should not be confused with that condition. Communicate the actual appointment status and contact details accurately.
This concerns suspects and accused persons. An employee called as a witness needs the separate rules on summonses and refusal to testify. The criminal witness guide addresses that position.
Counsel's attendance has statutory limits
During investigation, defense counsel may attend questioning, take notes and state opinions. Article 245 permits restrictions or prohibition where facts support risks involving state secrets, destruction or falsification of evidence, collusion with accomplices or witnesses, harm to another's reputation, or misconduct sufficient to affect the order of the investigation. The grounds must be recorded.
If counsel is barred and no other defense lawyer remains present, the person must again be informed about silence and retaining counsel, including the legal-aid information. Counsel normally receives notice of the date, time and place of questioning; urgency is an exception. Attendance should not be described as unconditional.
A company contact record can identify the investigating agency, appointment time, employee's procedural status and personal counsel. Before placing the substance of consultations in a shared report, establish who the client is and what disclosure has been authorized.
Official sources
- Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 27 and Article 30: retention and appointment
- Article 95, Article 100-2 and Article 245: notices, police questioning and attendance
- Taiwan Bar Association, legal ethics rules Article 31 and full rules, Article 33: conflicts and third-party fees
Sources checked October 14, 2026. This article addresses Taiwan criminal defense and lawyer-engagement rules.
Frequently Asked Questions
- Does paying the fees entitle the company to every employee consultation?
- No such entitlement follows merely from payment. Article 33 of Taiwan's legal ethics rules conditions third-party payment on disclosure to and consent from the client, without impairing independent judgment. Confidentiality duties to that client continue. Clarify who the client is and what reporting is authorized.
- Can company and employee consent always permit joint representation?
- No. Article 31 permits written consent after disclosure for certain conflicts, but its exception does not cover representing both sides of the same contentious matter, or jointly representing people on one side whose interests conflict.
- Must questioning stop when the employee says counsel has been retained?
- Article 95(2) requires an immediate stop where the accused has no counsel present and states that counsel has already been retained, unless the accused consents to continued questioning. Article 100-2 applies the chapter to police questioning of suspects. A future plan to retain counsel is not the same statutory situation.
This article provides general information and is not legal advice on any individual matter.
