The issue of weakened functionality of duty lawyers in cases of admission of guilt and acceptance of punishment persists, as evidenced by the obstacles encountered by these lawyers in obtaining case information from police investigators, their passive involvement in meeting with the accused person and reviewing dossiers, and the formalities surrounding their presence during pledging procedures. The reasons for these problems are as follows: Firstly, the operation of the duty lawyer system may conflict with the efficiency-oriented values embedded within authorities responsible for processing the admission of guilt and acceptance of punishment cases, potentially slowing down procedural flow and prolonging case processing cycles. Some personnel may harbor psychological resistance towards the substantive participation of duty lawyers in judicial proceedings. Secondly, the consultative judicial concept promoting equal dialogue and rational negotiation between prosecution and defense parties has not been fully implemented within the admission of guilt and acceptance of punishment case processes; some personnel hold misconceptions regarding the role and capabilities of duty lawyers during sentencing negotiations. Thirdly, the lack of legal supervision by prosecutors in power-dominated models prevalent within the admission of guilt and acceptance of punishment cases has resulted in connivance, enabling conscious or unconscious expansion of interests by the authorities responsible for processing the cases through rule-making processes and specific judicial procedures. It should be acknowledged that the current duty lawyer system plays a crucial role in striking a balance between the fairness and efficiency of criminal proceedings, punishment of crimes and protection of human rights in cases involving the admission of guilt and acceptance of punishment. Moreover, it is important to recognize that the reliance and control on public power are two significant factors impacting the effective functioning of the duty lawyer system. In line with China's ongoing criminal justice reform and considering the existing practice environment, it is advisable to promote systematic development of the duty lawyer system and related mechanisms to address the issue of weakened functionality from three perspectives: Firstly, standardize and implement notification procedures by case-handling authorities to ensure timely meetings between duty lawyers and accused individuals while granting complete access to case dossiers. Secondly, reform performance evaluation systems for case-handling authorities in the admission of guilt and acceptance of punishment cases by eliminating evaluation indicators based on application rates for the system of admitting guilt and accepting punishment; instead, employ both quantitative and qualitative methods to assess case-handling personnel's performance to facilitate substantive participation of duty lawyers in handling such cases. Thirdly, enhance supervision over powers at the pre-trial stages. This can be achieved through strengthening legal oversight by prosecutorial organs and deepening reforms within the people's supervisor system, which establish external supervisory mechanisms restraining powers wielded by prosecutorial organs, thereby promoting a combination of internal and external supervision aimed at comprehensive oversight over police and judicial authorities involved in handling such cases.