The party who once thought that the court had no right to inspect lawyers, represented by lawyer Zhang Jun, mostly relied on Article 6 of the Rules for the Safety Inspection of Judicial Police in the Supreme People's Court People's Courts promulgated by the Supreme People's Court in 2004 (in fact, there was Article 10 of the Provisional Rules for the Prevention and Handling of Unexpected Events in People's Courts in 2008, which will be further elaborated below). However, a careful examination of the content of this article does not seem to contain the content that lawyers should not be subject to security inspection. On the contrary, according to this provision, lawyers seem to have to undergo security checks.
If lawyers want to avoid the security check, they need to prove to the doorman that they are here to "perform their duties in court according to law". At this time, lawyers need to produce: (1) court summons, (2) power of attorney of the parties, (3) lawyer's letter from the law firm, and (4) their own lawyer's certificate. The combination of these certificates can prove that the licensed lawyer really came to "perform his duties in court according to law", not to do anything else.
Of course, some lawyers are familiar with the doorman because they often go to the court to handle affairs. The doorman may be too lazy to do security checks for lawyers and let them go directly. But that doesn't mean that the doorman doesn't have this power.