泰国法律事务所的汉语服务研究—以高梧桐律师事务所为例

Abstract

随着“一带一路”倡议与“泰国 4.0”战略的持续推进，中泰经贸合作不断深化，越来越 多中国企业赴泰投资发展。与此同时，跨国经营过程中涉及的法律事务日趋复杂，语言障碍与 文化差异也逐渐成为影响法律服务效率的重要因素。在此背景下，泰国法律市场对专业汉语法 律服务的需求不断增长。 本文以泰国高梧桐律师事务所为研究对象，围绕其汉语法律服务模式、客户满意度以及跨 文化沟通机制展开研究。文章采用文献研究法、个案分析法、问卷调查法及 SWOT 分析法，对 事务所在中泰跨境法律服务中的运行模式与竞争优势进行系统分析。研究发现，高梧桐律师事 务所凭借“法律+语言”复合型服务模式、双语法律文本服务以及深度跨文化沟通能力，在中 国客户群体中建立了较高的专业信任度。调查结果显示，中国客户对事务所的法律专业水平、 汉语沟通能力以及服务效率整体满意度较高，但事务所仍存在人才梯队建设不足、服务标准化 程度不高及数字化服务能力有待提升等问题。 基于研究结果，本文提出泰国法律事务所应进一步建立双语法律术语体系，加强法律与汉 语复合型人才培养，推动数字化法律服务建设，并完善中泰跨文化法律服务机制，从而提升泰 国法律行业的国际化竞争力，为中泰经贸合作提供更加稳定、高效的法律保障。

With the continuous advancement of the Belt and Road Initiative and the Thailand 4.0 strategy, economic and trade cooperation between China and Thailand has become increasingly close. As more Chinese enterprises invest and operate in Thailand, legal issues related to cross-border business activities have become more complex. At the same time, language barriers and cultural differences have gradually emerged as important factors affecting the efficiency of legal services. Under such circumstances, the demand for professional Chinese-language legal services in Thailand has continued to grow. This study takes Sak Kosaengrueng Law Office as a case study to explore its Chinese-language legal service model, customer satisfaction, and cross-cultural communication mechanisms. The research adopts literature review, case study, questionnaire survey, and SWOT analysis methods to systematically examine the firm’s operational model and competitive advantages in Sino-Thai crossborder legal services. The findings indicate that the firm has established a strong sense of professional trust among Chinese clients through its “law + language” integrated service model, bilingual legal documentation, and in-depth cross-cultural communication capabilities. The survey results reveal that Chinese clients generally show high satisfaction with the firm’s legal professionalism, Chinese communication skills, and service efficiency. However, issues such as insufficient talent development, lack of service standardization, and limited digital service capability still exist. Based on the findings, this paper suggests that Thai law firms should establish standardized bilingual legal terminology systems, strengthen the cultivation of interdisciplinary legal and language professionals, promote digital legal services, and improve Sino-Thai cross-cultural legal communication mechanisms. These measures would enhance the international competitiveness of Thailand’s legal industry and provide stronger legal support for Sino-Thai economic cooperation.