The 2026 ALB Top GBA Cross-Border Lawyers list highlights practitioners who help clients deal with the complex and evolving situation of cross-border legal practice in the Greater Bay Area. Enforcement has been a major focus for these practitioners over the past year, particularly since the new reciprocal enforcement regime for Mainland judgments took effect in Hong Kong in January 2024.
According to Eric Xu, a consultant at Charles Wilson, this change has significantly impacted his practice. “In the past, many clients assumed it was almost impossible to enforce against assets outside the Mainland, so they paid little attention to the choice of forum or the drafting of the dispute resolution clause,” says Xu. “That assumption no longer holds.”
Enforcement Challenges
Xu’s practice has seen a steady rise in cross-border enforcement work, driven largely by People’s Republic of China (PRC) judgment debtors moving assets offshore after an adverse judgment. The lower threshold under the new regime means that a much wider range of Mainland civil and commercial judgments can now be enforced in Hong Kong. But enforcement is never automatic. Hong Kong judges will not simply rubber-stamp a Mainland judgment, particularly where it turns on PRC concepts with no direct common law equivalent.
Xu explains that dual-qualified lawyers add real value in these cases, as they can explain PRC procedures and concepts to Hong Kong judges. “It is common for PRC lawyers to give affidavit or expert evidence explaining procedures such as retrial or a procuratorate protest, which can bear directly on whether a judgment is final and enforceable,” says Xu.
Strategic Planning
Ben Chan Siu Pan, a senior consultant and head of the China practice at H.Y. Leung & Co., has observed a shift in how clients handle disputes. “Clients are now much more focused on enforceability and recovery at the very beginning of a dispute, rather than treating those as questions at the later stage,” notes Chan. This shift aligns with the refined framework for mutual judicial assistance between Hong Kong and the Mainland.
Related Post: Australian court sets strict AI rules for lawyers and court
Xu advises clients to assess their positions before agreeing to a dispute resolution clause. “We now advise clients not to agree to any dispute resolution clause until they have mapped where their own assets and their counterparty’s assets are located, and where an award or judgment is likely to be enforced,” says Xu. “For example, under the Mainland-Hong Kong arrangement on interim measures, a party to a qualifying Hong Kong-seated institutional arbitration can apply to the Mainland courts to preserve assets. Founders with significant Mainland assets may be concerned about that exposure, and in that situation it may be advisable to choose an alternative seat such as Singapore,” he adds.
Chan has adjusted his practice accordingly. From the outset, he considers legal merits alongside recoverability, preservation options, procedural compatibility, and commercial sensitivities, while coordinating advice from both jurisdictions. “The aim is to ensure that the dispute strategy is legally sound, commercially realistic, and practically enforceable,” notes Chan.
The industries and clients generating work have also diversified considerably. “We are seeing more disputes involving AI and intellectual property, particularly given Shenzhen’s position as China’s leading tech hub, which has required us to deepen our industry know-how,” says Xu. “GBA companies in more traditional sectors are expanding overseas and, as a result, facing more disputes with foreign counterparties. We are increasingly dealing with opposing counsel from Indonesia, India, and across Africa. Even where the facts are similar, different counterparties call for different cultural approaches and case strategies.”
Clients are also placing greater importance on dual qualification, Chan says. “Increasingly, they see it as important to the efficient handling of cross-border matters in the Greater Bay Area,” says Chan. This view has been reinforced by the continued development of the GBA lawyers scheme, including its integration into national legislation with effect from September 1, 2026.
