Relational Embeddedness and Socially Motivated Case Screening in the Practice of Law in Rural China Ke Li Based on an ethnographic study conducted in rural China, this article demon- strates that relational embeddedness—that is, concrete and durable relationships among law practitioners, clients, adversaries, and the surrounding communi- ties—holds the key to our understandings of the legal profession’s case screen- ing. Over the past decade, legal services in rural China have been commodified significantly. Despite that, relationships with extended families, community members, and local political elites have continued to shape law practitioners’ professional decision-making. By carefully scrutinizing multi- plex relationships involved in legal services, law practitioners seek to meet the practical needs of their personal life, and more importantly, to uphold moral obligations derived from communal life. Seen in this light, the practice of law is an integral part of a moral economy in the countryside. Rather than giving rise to a more progressive form of services, the legal profession’s participation in this moral economy often reinforces existing power structures in Chinese society. By introducing the concept of relational embeddedness into sociolegal research, this study unpacks the complex consequences of the recent legal reforms in China; it also enriches our theoretical understandings of related concepts, such as social capital, networking, and guanxi in the practice of law. For nearly three decades, there have been heated discussions in the United States about economic incentives in legal practice. Researchers generally agree that economic interests play a critical role in shaping lawyers’ behavior. A telling example in this regard is lawyers’ practice of case screening. Motivated by self-interest, lawyers tend to conduct case screening on a rational, cost- effective basis and seek out cases with high fee potential. This intentional pursuit of potentially lucrative business is particularly prevalent among lawyers in private practice (Helland and Tab- arrok 2003; Johnson Jr. 1980-81; Kritzer 1984, 1987, 1997, 1998, 2001; Kritzer and Krishnan 1999; Kritzer et al. 1985; Van The research reported in this article was funded through the National Science Founda- tion (Grant No. 0960759), The Social Science Research Council, Chiang Ching-kuo Foun- dation for International Scholarly Exchange, and China Times Cultural Foundation. This article benefited enormously from the comments and suggestions of Ethan Michelson, Bri- an Steensland, Sara Friedman, Brian Powell, and Philip Parnell. Please direct all correspondence to Ke Li, Department of Sociology, Framingham State University, 100 State Street, Framingham, MA 01701; e-mail: kli@framingham.edu. Law & Society Review , Volume 50, Number 4 (2016) V C 2016 Law and Society Association. All rights reserved. 920