The Asia Chronicles: Walking the Walk, Talking the Talk
In the last three installments of the Asia Chronicles, we’ve written about the perks and the (possible) disadvantages of working as a lawyer in Asia. We have been trying to give you a better idea of what it’s like to work over here and to help you decide if moving to Asia might be an option that you would like to explore.
But many of you have contacted us saying that you need to hear no more, you’re already convinced. You want to know what kind of skills American firms in Asia are looking for, and how to go about finding a job in this part of the world.
The most common question we get on this topic is about language ability: “How much of a difference will language skills, or lack thereof, make in the marketability of a job candidate?” As lawyers, none of you should be surprised that we can only answer this question with more questions:
1. How high is your language level, really?
We’ve seen a lot of job seekers come into our offices with resumes that describe their language skills as “proficient” or even “fluent,” but when we ask them even a basic question in that language, they often struggle to answer. In general, a few years of college language classes does not a fluent speaker make, and even people who have spent significant time immersed in a language environment rarely have learned the legal and business terminology that would be needed for common tasks such as reading due diligence documents, participating in a drafting session, or negotiating a comfort letter. Unless you are a native or legitimately fluent speaker, your language skills will honestly not be of much use to a law firm, and therefore will not balance out deficiencies in the core strengths of a candidate, such as graduating from a top-ranked law school with high grades or having valuable work experience.
That said, a glance at the attorney roster of many selective law firms in Asia reveals some lawyers with lower than average credentials but strong language and culture experience (time spent in the U.S. State Department is a common theme) that seems to have gotten them hired. However, having some lesser level of language ability could make a marginal difference with an otherwise qualified candidate because it may help convince a law firm that you are interested in and capable of living in a certain country and interacting well with people from that culture.
2. Do you really want to be hired based on your language ability?
One of the first hard truths that we learned after spending some time working in Asia is that having language skills might not always be something you want to advertise. We’ve seen many native and fluent speakers relegated to countless hours of foreign language documentary due diligence or translation because no one else in the office was capable of doing it. One of our colleagues has even been keeping her language ability a secret so that she can avoid being staffed on such mind-numbing projects. Lawyers who can speak and understand but cannot read or write (or at least pretend they can’t) have the advantage of being able to participate in the comparatively more interesting client meetings and negotiation while avoiding less enjoyable tasks.
Read more, after the jump.
3. Where do you want to work?
Language skills are more important in some markets than in others. In Hong Kong and Singapore, language skills are generally less critical, mainly because offices in these cities handle work all over Asia, including countries where English is widely spoken (such as India) or where it is not expected that American lawyers will be functional in the local language (such as Indonesia).
In the PRC and Japan, however, language skills are much more important. It seems to us that the ability to work in Japanese is getting to be practically mandatory in Japan, since there is a healthy supply of U.S.-qualified lawyers who can do so. In the PRC, supply has not yet kept up with demand, so the inability to speak Chinese is not yet too much of a hindrance, though we predict that this will not be true a decade from now.
The opinions we hold (as described above) are not completely in line with those of this column’s sponsor, we hasten to add. According to Evan Jowers of the Hong Kong office of Kinney Recruiting, “Spoken fluency in a regional language is important, but not critical, even in mainland China or Japan in our experience. Certain other factors are just as important to many of our clients. In the case of China, for example, some firms have partners in charge of the mainland offices who are such fluent speakers of Chinese that they need associates backing them with outstanding English drafting skills more than they need someone who can get the taxi headed the right direction.”
In speaking to Evan and Robert Kinney about this, we discovered that Kinney Recruiting’s very first placement in Hong Kong was of a rosy-cheeked Englishman who couldn’t pronounce “XieXie” intelligibly to save his life. He’s now the general counsel of a major private equity fund operating in the region, including in Korea, the Mainland, and as far away as Australia and, according to Robert Kinney, “gets along great and is highly regarded by the partners of his firm.” Both Robert and Evan (and we) agree that “U.S. associate candidates for Asia, even without regional language skills, can help their cause if they have previous international experience, as well as by showing a high level of maturity and entrepreneurial drive in their interviews.”
In the next installment of the Asia Chronicles, we will continue to discuss the process of job seeking, with advice on how to choose a firm.
For more questions, you know where to find us: asiacorporatelawyers at gmail dot com.
*****************
Kinney Recruiting has made more placements of U.S. associates and partners in Asia than any other firm in the past two years.
[Disclosure: Kinney is the sponsor of this post.]




Comments
Comments hidden for your protection. Show them anyway!
FIRST in Asia again!!
ENOUGH ALREADY! Nobody cares about these ridiculous posts from recruiters. Fire these d-bags and get some good writers in.
Roger Lou: Can you comment on your work in China for Wachtell?
"But many of you have contacted us saying that you need to hear no more, you're already convinced. "
If two unemployed lawyers asked for jobs, but one asked for more information, that statement is misleading at best.
what is the email address to get in contact with this site?
I find these posts great and incredibly informative. Who cares if someone makes a buck off of recruiting as a result? I don't know anywhere else where someone could get this sort of in-depth info.
great post. if you don't want info on the Asia markets simply don't read. Personally, I find these articles very informative.
These posts are neither great nor incredibly informative. I am not one to pile on the blog much, but this series of posts from lame headhunters sucks. I am not surprised that these recruiting jokers failed as lawyers if they write this poorly and sound like such colossal douchebags.
I also seriously doubt that they can support that "Kinney Recruiting has made more placements of U.S. associates and partners in Asia than any other firm in the past two years." claim.
Folks, chill. As 11:44 pointed out, don't read if not interested. While I too would like more substantive info re: offshore opportunities, we've got to start somehwere. Unlike the US, info re: practising abroad is not easy to find nor are the markets as transparent. Have you ever tried to find NALP info on US firms with foreign offices? Sparse...
These posts are fine and contain some useful info.
But I could do without the long block quotes from the recruiter in every one.
"does not a fluent speaker make?" Really?
The Asia Chronicles: Not Just Uninformative Recruiting Hype, But Stilted Writing Too.
To those who object to posts by a recruiter:
How is this different from, say, a securities lawyer writing an article on securities law for your local legal weekly (with the lawyer's affiliation and contact information helpfully appended)? In both cases, there is a marketing or promotional component to the piece, but the content is based on the author's particular area of expertise.
I am 12:12. Let me answer my own question, because I just noticed that this post has been "sponsored" by the author. I assume that means they paid for the right to publish the post. That's very different from my hypothetical. I now condemn this post.
Mixed editorial / advertising content is nothing new. It is widely accepted, and it exists in print and online.
For example, look at those "special sections" or supplements that you find in the Sunday New York Times. They look like editorial content, but they are really closer to advertising. In the fine print, you see something like "Paid Advertising" or "This Is An Advertisement."
Bottom line: don't like it, don't read it.
12:19: Those supplements always (or at least almost always) say they are paid advertising at the top of the page, not at the end. Subtle difference, but it's context the reader should know as he reads. They are also usually in a distinct typeface, boxed in, or printed against a colored background that distinguishes them from editorial content. Paid pieces are distinguished in these ways because mainstream paper media believe they have a vested interest in making sure that readers know what is and is not editorial content.
The approach here at ATL, on the other hand, appears to be to make the non-editorial content look as much like editorial content as possible. That's not a very good practice.
You say "Don't like it, don't read it." But with this piece, the basis on which I might not like it is not revealed until after I've read it.
日本に働くのため、上手な日本語が必要だよ。
I think this post was very helpful. As an American who has done two long stints abroad, I would have welcomed a gentle introduction from folks in the field as to what to expect. The recruiting nonsense you hear (from recruiters and firms) is not always helpful, so it's nice to have an unvarnished insider scoop on what life is really like. In fact, this is not dissimilar to the other ways that ATL provides transparency to readers that otherwise does not exist.
Lastly, I would concur about secondary language skills in the law. I had twelve years of a European language under my belt and majored in literature in that language, but it was only when I started translating and drafting documents in that language that I realized that legal/business lingo in a foreign language is a whole new ball game. Ever thought about how to say "drawdown", "private equity", "indemnification" or drafting phrases like "therein" "therefor" or "provided, however" in a foreign language? If not, you're not really as fluent as you need to be for corporate work.
Cheers from an expat
Western women refuse to sleep with you.
You couldn't hack it NY.
Your mothers are ashamed of you.
This is bad. These posts suck AND comments get deleted!?
useful post
As suggested by 12:19, this post might work if it was flagged as a Special Advertising Section, as is done in most media outlets when sponsored material is woven in. This would allow those of us familiar with ATL, as well as those who are not yet familiar with Evan's useless work, to make an intelligent choice on whether the post should be read or skipped.
11.45, are you aware that successful recruiters make 5+ times a junior biglaw associate's wage? Do you think that all biglaw associates who leave major law firms, whether for small firm, in-house or business opportunities (including recruiting opportunities) are failures? As for these articles, I am an attorney recruiter, although not a Kinney recruiter, and find the articles informative as well. I also doubt that Kinney can back up their claim that they make more US attorney placements in Asia than any other recruiting firm, but that is mainly because such statistics are not available. I have done some very limited amounts of recruiting in Asia and from what I understand, Kinney has made a ton of placements there, mainly by one person on their team.
Comments are getting deleted?!!
So, how does someone who might be a native speaker but not familiar with the corporate/legal terminalogy go about getting such expertise? It's not like we can learn corporate/legal terminalogy on a regular basis with our relatives at our dinners. ;)
That is not a new policy. Nonsense comments, spam, etc., always get deleted.
What is a nonsense comment? Aren't most of the comments nonsense?
12:53, 11:45 here.
I will concede that I am sure that a few recruiters out there are making $800k a year. Just like there are a few high school dropouts out there making $10,000,000 a year, and every once in a while someone manages to tag a sprinkler cover with the first bounce on a good drive and ends up driving the ball onto the green on a 415 yard par 4.
But it's not common, and the extremely few who make that kind of money are far along in their recruiting careers. Are you seriously suggesting that a lot of recruiters are making that kind of money? Come on. It's disingenuous at best to suggest that "successful recruiters make 5+ time a junior biglaw associate's wage."
If you are a recruiter, you have to admit that the vast majority of your fellow recruiters are talentless hacks. I'm not saying that they all are, but it is very rare indeed that anyone with a promising career in law (where, if you want and have the skills and stamina, you can become a partner and make a lot more than $800k a year) decides to "step up" to recruiting. It's the refuge of people who like the atmosphere and money of large law firms, but can't handle the work or the hours.
So, let's call a spade a spade. It's up to Lat to determine what to have on his blog. He has to balance the reputation he wants with the traffic he wants and the revenue he wants to get from this. I think that it's fine that this stuff is here; I just happen to personally feel that it sucks and is low quality. It is exceedingly poorly written and reminds me immediately of how many hacks who couldn't cut it in the practice of law are now legal recruiters.
@1:43
Amen.
12:24 is right on the mark. It should say "[PAID ADVERTISEMENT]" or "[SPECIAL ADVERTISING SUPPLEMENT]" at the top of the post, not have a sheepish disclosure buried at the bottom. And that "Asia Corporate Lawyers" byline should be changed to Evan Jowers.
Those who find these posts informative are missing the point. Making these posts look like (and integrating them with) editorial content is misleading and tarnishes the journalistic integrity of this blog. 12:28 is a perfect example -- it is ironic that the poster bemoans the "recruiting nonsense" from recruiters while praising the "unvarnished insider scoop" and "ATL transparency". Mission Accomplished, from Kinney's perspective.
Lat, put this piece of advertising where it belongs -- as a banner at the top or side of the page. Heck, you'll probably get more click-through revenue that way, judging from the number of commenters who find this post informative.
"Mixed editorial / advertising content is nothing new."
It's nothing new, and it continues to suck.
My problem is that posts appear to be written by Kinney people, and not by the "intimate cabal of high-flying, hard-charging corporate associates working throughout Asia, each sworn to secrecy and known to each other only by smell". Realize that this series is starting from ground up, but can we get past recruiting info and start hearing about actual practice experience? For example, what does a US lawyer w/o Chinese language skills do in a PRC office?
2:22,
I'm gonna guess he doesn't order lunch. ;)
This post is nothing without comments from Roger Lou/Luo/Loo.
2:23 - nice!
1:49, tarnishes the journalistic integrity of this blog? That's a bit much.
where is the eminent roger lou ?
To 1:06:
I don't speak Chinese, so this could be harder in a language with characters. But I taught myself legal Spanish by working on a few Spanish and Portuguese/Brazilian deals, buying an excellent legal and business dictionary, and doing a lot of defining/translating as I moved through the operating documents. That is to say, slow slogging through docs as I translated them/struggled to understand them. It's particularly tricky when the syntax of the other language is different from English, so you can't just draft word-for-word translations, but you get better at it. If you are really comfortable with language, this is no different than reading Middle Ages poetry or 18th- and 19th century novels in another language. It's similar to what you know but a slightly distinct vernacular. It's not a fast process.
I also improved by working on pro bono matters (which were legal, but not business) in Spanish.
Cheers--from Expat
11.45, 12.53 here. I agree that the vast majority of recruiters are nothing more than care salesman types and telemarketers, but being in the industry, I know many that make well over 500k per year who are only a few years removed from their associate days. It is a very tough job and those that are successful work more hours than they did as biglaw associates. But the financial rewards (and other rewards) are enormous. I don't think I would have ever made partner at the top 10 US firm I was at, to be honest, but I did "throw away" my biglaw career after only 4 years to go into recruiting. There are many second and third rate recruiters, but there are many in the industry that do a great job and laugh there way to the bank. Actually, Mr. Jowers is one of those from what I understand. The guy has a big ego, but he is an extremely succesful in his profession and I assume makes in 7 figures. I don't think he would want his biglaw job back either... It is one thing to have bad feelings towards all the cold callers, but there is another side to recruiting and as you hopefully advance in your biglaw career, you will probably appreciate the good ones more.
For what it is worth, I know one of the writers and he is an associate at a major US firm in Asia. Of course, I could also be from Kinney writing this, so what is my comment really worth. I suggest that Lat clarify and assure ATL community that the writers are indeed associates at law firms in Asia. However, the writers I am sure do not want to be named, which is understandable.
kawaii...no...[child? learning?] o yarutame, [below?]...na nihongo (i.e. Japanese) ga jin (i.e. person)...
I'm in Japan.
This language is profoundly difficult. If you don't already have it from some other background, trying to puff yourself as "being fluent" because you took it in college is a joke. Your Japanese is nowhere near as good as most (business and legal) Japanese' English. You do not need high/any profeciency in Japanese to function. However, if you actually intend to be one of the people doing work in Japanese, you damn well better be perfectly bilingual. Not only will you screw up documents, you will make an ass out of yourself when you wind up being forced to talk to big-shot Japanese.
Japanese are generally very accomedating. As mentioned, English is not hard to come by, and they find it somewhat amusing and disarming that Westerners struggle with the language (research what "Your Japanese is very good" actually means). But once you start holding yourself out as good as native, all bets are off, both from your employer and your Japanese counterparts, who will NOT be thrilled when you have misrepresented your ability.
this was terribly written.
5:52, on a different issue, are the expat packages discussed in the earlier posts accurate? Do firms really pay for housing (enough to cover the rent in Tokyo whatever that may be) and private school tuitions?
6.32, I am not 5.52 (actually I am Evan with Kinney and thought I should start chiming in since I am slammed so much on these comments, even by other recruiters it seems), but most top US firms do pay housing allowances in Asia, but not all. Most of the allowances are plenty enough to cover rent in Tokyo. The more competitive annual Tokyo housing allowances / expat packages are in the 130 to 140k range (can be more for associates with children) (In HK / China, the competitive allowance is 65 - 80k). Some but not all firms pay for private school tuitiions as well, with some simply not having had to deal in recent years with the issue of new hire associates that have school aged children (in other words, it can be negotiated for at some firms that don't have yet a policy to pay for tuition). In any event, it is hard to not come out ahead financially if you lateral to a firm in Tokyo that pays a competitive housing allowance. I am happy to answer any reader's substantive questions. In the past I have also been HK Recruiter on the greedy overseas board on findlaw, before ATL started taking over for this type of forum, and I have been giving out this type of information for a long time. And no, we at Kinney don't write the Asia Chronicles articles (real live associates are doing the writing, believe it or not) and we don't choose the topics either. I have obviously been quoted in each one and am just trying to be as informative as I can be in a pretty small space.
7:07 - real live associates are doing the writing for a sponsored article? If that is true, the only thing that comes to mind is "paid mouthpiece" (to borrow a phrase from a recent farewell e-mail)
7.51, why is it that if a few associates in Asia give an account of their experiences, as well as give their opinions on the Asia markets in general, that they are "paid moutpieces", as you put it? Who cares if the article is sponsored by a recruiting firm? It is not like Kinney is asking readers to give them a call or simply making the article on big advertisement. It is an informative piece, with information that any major firm attorney interested in the Asia markets will find useful. If Kinney makes a buck somehow from the article, so what? It is not like they are going to get new clients just because of the article. They have to be able to convince whoever may call them that they are the best firm to handle a particular a job search, etc. In the meantime, the article is a great source of info for those interested in Asia, whether or not those persons ever get in touch with Kinney.
I'm an associate with a Biglaw firm in the PRC. I agree with what was written above - if you have the language skills (no, I'm not talking about growing up speaking the language at home and coming over here for a few summers or a few years and learning how to not only direct a taxi driver, but also find your own place to live, order at restaurants, etc...), it really is a big advantage for you. Course, being able to read and analyze contracts and agreements in Chinese and attend meetings that are entirely in Chinese does have its kicks.
and punches, right Roger Luo? 洛先生, 对不对? 我说的没错。
2:22, speaking about PRC-related practice:
Most of the documentation for transactions in Asia (and even the PRC) are governed in English. For PE/VC/M&A work, most investors are US- or European-based banks or funds and the definitive documents are virtually always in English.
This is also true for capital markets work where most PRC companies attempt to list in HK or in the US (in both cases filings/disclosures are done in English).
Perhaps more importantly, most Chinese businesspeople's (albeit accented) English is far better than most US/UK/Euro/Aussie folks' Chinese (particularly business Chinese). So a significant or even majority of stuff is conducted in English, depending on practice group.
In addition, I would generally agree with the remark that the better one's Chinese (particularly reading/writing), the more likely that attorney will be working on items that require the language capability (i.e., reviewing DD, comprehending a Chinese law or regulation, etc.).
Moreover, there is a premium on US-educated or US-trained lawyers because they are typically more able to (a) make decisions without always having to vet questions to, or seek approval of, senior lawyers, and (b) arrive at solutions (whether by drafting, negotiations, or otherwise) that are not apparent simply by referring to a form or precedent.
Where language ability is most helpful is (a) if you're interfacing a client that is simply more comfortable in her/his native tongue, or (b) if a negotiation is occurring amongst parties where most/all folks can operate in Chinese more easily than in English.
Obviously, people with true business Chinese fluency can add value in a way that others cannot. But it's by no means a sine qua non to working in a PRC-related practice in Asia.
Another Expat
I loved this line: "we discovered that Kinney Recruiting's very first placement in Hong Kong was of a rosy-cheeked Englishman who couldn't pronounce "XieXie" intelligibly to save his life."
Hmm...Xie xie is mandarin, Hong Kong people speak Cantonese, even if he could say it, his "language skills" would be useless in HK.
I work in Asia and these posts are a complete waste of time. If you had plans to come to Asia, maybe check out Kinney, if you didn't, all the "advantages" of working here (at leas tin HK/PRC) don't exist.
4:40 - I also work in Asia, and I have yet to see someone at the HK office of a firm speaking Cantonese to negotiate a PRC PE/VC deal. I think the Mandarin wouldn't be quite so "useless." Also, if these posts are a waste of time for a know-it-all like you, stop reading them. Otherwise, I suppose it's comforting to see that pompous [BigLaw] people are everywhere, no matter what the continent.
I'm a US lawyer seriously considering relocating to Asia. Two questions: If law firms are paying such great expat packages, how can the firms possibly be making money in Asia? Are these firms operating these offices at a loss, perhaps with the expectation that the offices are funneling profitable work to the home office in the US?
Also, if you go to an office in Asia, and for whatever reason, things don't work out, is it easy to switch to another firm there? I'd hate to be stranded abroad.
9.34, this is Evan. Those are two good questions. Re the expat packages affecting profitability, sure these packages can eat in to some of the profits, but frankly, good associates are a lot more profitable to major law firms than 60 to 80k per year. However, most US firms will struggle to profit in Asia in their first several years of having an office there, for reasons going well beyond expat packages. Most firms move there because they are following one or two main clients and / or they have strategic plans for breaking into a very fertile overseas market for the long-term. Not much work is funneled to home offices, actually, although the opposite is true at times. What does occur is that very important clients developed and cultivated from home office can be further serviced by the firm, due to a capability in Asia. It is quite easy to move from firm to firm within the Asia markets, as well as move back to the major US markets. For example, in the last month, we have moved two associates from one HK firm to another HK firm, as well as one associate from one BJ firm to another BJ firm. Such moves are not uncommon. It stands to reason that you will be more marketable to US firms in Asia if you are already in Asia, than if you are lateraling from the US markets (notwithstanding the fact that US firms in Asia continue to hire US laterals at a high rate).
9:34, Robert Kinney here for myself and Evan Jowers. Your questions are good ones and I thought we should say something. Until a couple of years ago, most of the US firm's offices in Asia were operating at a loss. Today, with the exception of three who are roughly breakeven which I would not identify on this board, they are all profitable. With the credit and equity markets in the US as they are, few of the firms are funneling work back to the US - these are not outposts any more. Several years ago all we would see going on in Asia in many US firms were 144A/Reg S offerings, but this market is irrelevant now. The home grown work is much more exciting. The financing is Asian/Middle Eastern/European on many of these deals, and the clients are not "US persons" either. The only American aspect to much of the work is the law and the lawyers. Regarding whether you can switch firms, making a mistake in the firm you join is just as potentially damaging to your career in Asia as it is here. That said, on several occasions that I can think of, Evan has placed American attorneys moving within Asia. I have placed in house counsel in positions that brought them out of the law firms they joined as well. So if you move to Asia, you can and should consider it a career move - not a "jolly."
To the detractors out there who slam us and ATL for the articles, yes, we're advertising. It's not cheap, either. But the articles are written by real, live associates at firms in Asia. ATL has a business to run and we have had remarkable success in Asia which we believe gives us great insight into the market there. We can be even more successful there and we can help anyone who's thinking about Asia make an informed decision as to his or her prospects. One conversation with Evan or myself and I believe you will see that we are well informed and well connected in Asia, not airheads, not snobs, and we work as hard or harder than most of our clients and candidates. If you don't feel that way, we'll give you some other recruiters to call!
Another Expat @ 2:01am - finally! Thank you for the first peak into actual practice. Any other expats willing to comment re: office workings, quality/availability of support staff, cohesion (or not) among US and non-US attorneys, etc? Also, how common is it to observe non-local time zone? And if non-local time involved, are you observing 100% of local time?
Question to Robert Kinney and/or Evan Jowers: Could you pls respond as to current/generally understood meaning for the following terms re: language skills?
(1) Fluent (how to distinguish from legal/biz fluency?)
(2) Proficient
(3) Working knowledge
(4) Conversant
(5) Basic knowledge
Thank you in advance.
2.28pm, Evan here. The levels for language fluency are native fluent (meaning obvious); fluent in both spoken and written; fluent in spoken; proficient (this is where the ability starts to get vague, but by saying you are proficient, you are basically able to live and socialize in a language, although not able to conduct business); conversational (can simply keep a simple conversation going); basic knowledge (took some classes, etc., has very little meaning except to show that you have well established interest in the region of the world at issue).
When it comes to Mandarin, for example, I am most interested in candidates that are native fluent or "fluent in both spoken and written" (rare without being native). Anything less is nice and impressive, but still leaves you in the category of English only drafter and reader of legal documents.
As stated in the recent article though, Asian language skills are by no means a requirement to land at a top US or British firm in Asia. A little less than 50% of our placements in Asia have native / fluent in spoken and written Mandarin, Japanese, Korean, etc. language skills. And about 30% of our placements are English only, with no knowledge of any Asia language. These type of stats are not special to Kinney, as I am sure they are representative of the industry as a whole.
Hope this helps...
Another question for Robert/Evan - I know this is ATL and the focus is on HYS at BigLaw (or BigInHouse I guess) but what about those of us who did not go to a top law school and/or did not graduate with top grades? With the right background (e.g. work or language experience), is it possible to break into BigLaw in Asia? Alternatively, are there opportunities at smaller law firms/companies and if so, how does one go about finding such opportunties?
Evan@5:01pm: Appreciate the info. Pretty much confirmed what I had thought.
Although my experience is obviously limited by the fact that I have not even graduated from law school, I am currently interning at a Chinese law firm in China, and it's been enlightening.
I have studied Chinese for over six years, two of which were spent in China. My bachelor's is in Chinese language. I took a language proficiency test last year, and received the highest rating in spoken Chinese and the second-to-highest rating in written Chinese (and that was hand-written Chinese, which is probably far less important than being able to type Chinese and is a poor measure of literacy). For all intents and purposes, I am fluent in spoken and written Chinese. So far, I have had very few problems understanding Chinese legal documents.
However, it seems like it would be silly to ask me to draft a legal document in Chinese. There are plenty of great, native-PRC lawyers who could draft these documents much more quickly and cleary.
That having been said, I think that language abilities could be a big advantage, even if they aren't exactly native-level. Being able to read Chinese laws, contracts, and other legal documents is a valuable skill, especially since the corresponding English versions are not always well-written or even coherent. And as you read more laws and documents, it's fairly easy to pick up a legal vocabulary.
Further, being able to interact with clients and others who may be more comfortable in Chinese is an advantage. And, perhaps more importantly, because language proficiency is often accompanied by a knowledge of the relevant culture, Chinese speakers tend to have a better understanding of how business is conducted in Chinese culture. Chinese business practices are very much colored by Chinese culture, which itself is extremely nuanced. I believe that an ability to competently navigate business relationships with Chinese people and entities would be a tremendous advantage.
I agree that one shouldn't expect to be hired merely because he or she speaks a certain language (let's face it, lots of people speak Chinese). However, I think it can be a big advantage, even for someone who isn't as fluent as native speakers.
While Kiney offers rimjobs to Lat to relocate you to the Pacific Rim, you're the one that takes it up the ass.