Just this year, The China Guiding Cases Project (“CGCP”) of Stanford Law School launched its professional, bilingual journal, China Law Connect (“CLC”) to spread knowledge about important legal developments in and related to China. Experts Connect™ pieces are contributed by distinguished U.S. and international legal experts who analyze the significance of the recent U.S. Supreme Court cases. The September issue examined the Animal Science Products, Inc., et al. v. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. et al. (the “Vitamin C case”), specifically, how U.S. federal courts should determine issues of foreign law for U.S. litigation and Chinese law going forward.
James McManis, Founder and Partner of McManis Faulkner, Fellow of the International Academy of Trial Lawyers (“IATL”), and Chair of the IATL China Program, highlighted the most important takeaways from the Vitamin C case from a trial lawyer’s perspective. He explained that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision makes it worthwhile to examine the importance of Guiding Cases (“GCs”) in determining Chinese law. He also explains how a trial lawyer can argue for the applicability of a GC in any given litigation.
In a CGCP Interview, James McManis shared the lessons he learned during his 50-year career, including his most famous case (in which he represented a Ringling Brothers Barnum & Bailey circus trainer), and the insights he has gained from his extensive work in China. Repeating the old adage “[s]uccess in trial is 1% inspiration, and 99% perspiration”, he emphasized that predictability is the most important aspect of the law and explained why he thinks China’s GCs are significant. To see the portion of this interview released as part of CGCP Classroom™, visit https://cgc.law.stanford.edu/cgcp-classroom-lesson-7.