The Bar Association: "Constitutional Court Recognizes Disciplinary Action Against Lawyers Violating Advertising Regulations"... "LawTalk Must Advertise Without Displaying Trade Names"

Lee Jong-yeop, President of the Korean Bar Association, is delivering a statement at the public briefing on "The Meaning of the Constitutional Court Decision on Lawyer Advertising Regulations," held on the 14th floor auditorium of the Bar Association Building in Yeoksam-dong, Seoul, on the morning of the 31st. Photo by Choi Seok-jin

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin, Legal Affairs Specialist] The Korean Bar Association (KBA) is embroiled in controversy as it refuses to retract its contradictory claim that the Constitutional Court's ruling on certain provisions of the 'Regulations on Lawyer Advertising' (hereinafter Advertising Regulations), created to prevent member lawyers from joining LawTalk, is constitutional, despite the court declaring some provisions unconstitutional.

On the 31st, the KBA held a public briefing session explaining the meaning of the Constitutional Court's decision, asserting that the ruling recognized the constitutional legitimacy of disciplining lawyers who joined LawTalk for violating the Advertising Regulations.

The KBA hosted the public briefing titled 'The Meaning of the Constitutional Court Decision on Lawyer Advertising Regulations' at 10 a.m. in the large auditorium on the 14th floor of the KBA building in Yeoksam-dong, Seoul, targeting its members and various media outlets.

President Lee Jong-yeop, who first delivered a statement, said, "On the 26th, the Constitutional Court pointed out in detail the illegality of specific service patterns of legal platforms operated in a devious manner that undermines fair client acquisition order," adding, "Based on this, the court recognized the legality and validity of the core basis for disciplining lawyers participating in legal platforms like LawTalk, namely the Advertising Regulations."

He lamented, "Unfortunately, without a thorough review or accurate understanding of the Constitutional Court's decision, many reports based mainly on LawTalk's position and claims misrepresented the court's intent, causing misunderstandings and confusion."

President Lee emphasized, "Among the 12 provisions under review, including Article 5, Paragraph 2, Subparagraph 1 (first clause) and Subparagraph 2, which are the core basis for disciplining lawyers participating in legal platforms like LawTalk, the Constitutional Court upheld 9.5 provisions as constitutional. Considering that one of the provisions declared unconstitutional violated the prohibition on broad delegation, effectively only the latter clause of Article 5, Paragraph 2, Subparagraph 1 was ruled unconstitutional, meaning 95% of the provisions under review were recognized as constitutional."

He continued, "The KBA will continue its self-regulatory efforts to maintain a fair client acquisition order to prevent further public harm caused by false, exaggerated, or unfair advertisements, and will strive to refine the regulations more precisely, respecting the issues pointed out by the Constitutional Court."

Lee Chun-soo, the KBA's First Legislative Director, in his presentation on 'Interpretation and Meaning of the Constitutional Court Decision,' claimed that the ruling recognized ▲ the necessity of KBA regulation on lawyer advertising methods and content, ▲ the prohibition of advertisements displaying non-lawyers, ▲ the legitimacy of prohibiting cooperation or participation in legal platforms that promote legal consultations, and ▲ confirmed the illegality of unfair low-price advertisements, sentence prediction services, and legal platforms acting as 'connecting acts' directly linking lawyers and services.

Following the presentation, a Q&A session was held where Director Lee and Vice President Park Sang-soo responded to reporters' questions.

In response to the question, "Article 5, Paragraph 2, Subparagraph 2 of the Advertising Regulations, cited as the core basis for disciplining lawyers joining LawTalk, prohibits non-lawyers from displaying their trade names or advertising lawyers, thereby preventing lawyers from commissioning such advertisements. Does LawTalk's advertising of lawyers via its website or mobile app fall under this? If so, how is this distinguished from Naver or Legal Times advertising lawyers on their websites?" Vice President Park replied, "The Constitutional Court's decision states that the court recognized the unconstitutionality of Article 5, Paragraph 2, Subparagraph 2, noting that from the claimant company's perspective, this provision restricts the opportunity to advertise lawyers by displaying the company's trade name. The core of the decision is that when advertising lawyers, the company's trade name should not be displayed, as the private interest restricted by this is not greater than the public interest achieved, in terms of balancing legal interests."

Vice President Park explained, "They are saying not to display the LawTalk trade name in advertisements. It's not a ban on advertising itself, but a directive to hide the LawTalk name and instead prominently feature the lawyers, similar to other advertising agencies."

He added, "LawTalk is currently advertising under its own name. Article 5, Paragraph 2, Subparagraph 2 prohibits this, and the Constitutional Court upheld this provision as constitutional."

He further explained, "For example, advertisements appear on electronic billboards at the Koreana Hotel in Gwanghwamun, but the advertising company name like Cheil Worldwide is not displayed. Also, the Koreana Hotel name appearing is not an issue. If LawTalk operates like Cheil Worldwide, it would be acceptable. There is no problem with Naver, which provides the advertising platform, displaying its trade name."

Regarding the question, "Three provisions (not entire provisions but partial unconstitutionality) of the Advertising Regulations were declared unconstitutional. Is there any plan to apologize or express regret to the lawyers or the public affected by the application of these unconstitutional provisions?" Director Lee responded, "Excluding the two provisions ruled unconstitutional for violating the principle of legal reservation, the only part declared unconstitutional is the latter clause of Article 5, Paragraph 2, Subparagraph 1. Since the KBA has not yet resolved or requested disciplinary action based on violation of this clause, apologizing in such cases is unreasonable."

However, it was confirmed that the disciplinary initiation request letter dated April 4, issued under the KBA president's name, included both Article 5, Paragraph 2, Subparagraph 2 of the lawyer advertising regulations and Subparagraph 1, which was declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court, in the applicable legal provisions section. Director Lee explained, "Article 5, Paragraph 2, Subparagraph 1 also includes content about 'connecting lawyers and consumers,' which is why it was included in the applicable legal provisions."

Earlier, on the 26th, the Constitutional Court partially ruled unconstitutional on provisions including Article 5, Paragraph 2, Subparagraph 1 of the Advertising Regulations, which restricts commissioning advertisements to those who advertise lawyers for a fee, Article 4, Subparagraph 14, which restricts advertisements contrary to the KBA's authoritative interpretation, and Article 8, Paragraph 2, Subparagraph 4, which restricts advertisements aimed at acts violating the KBA's authoritative interpretation. The court found these provisions violated the constitutional principles of prohibition of excessive restrictions and legal reservation, infringing on the freedom of expression and occupational freedom of LawTalk operator Law&Company and the lawyers involved.

However, the day after the ruling, the KBA issued a statement asserting that "the Constitutional Court upheld the Advertising Regulations and recognized the constitutional legitimacy of the KBA's disciplinary actions against lawyers joining LawTalk," and announced it would continue disciplinary procedures against these lawyers. The day before, the KBA resolved to initiate a second disciplinary request against 28 lawyers who joined LawTalk, applying the remaining Advertising Regulations upheld by the Constitutional Court.

In response to the KBA's stance, Law&Company stated the previous day, "The KBA has disregarded three investigation results over seven years, the Fair Trade Commission's investigation, the Ministry of Justice's authoritative interpretation, and now even distorts the Constitutional Court's final decision," expressing deep disappointment at the KBA's insistence on proceeding with disciplinary actions without respecting the court's intent.

Given the completely opposing interpretations of the Constitutional Court's decision by the KBA and LawTalk, it is expected that the conflict will be difficult to resolve until a Supreme Court final ruling is issued on disciplinary cancellation lawsuits filed by lawyers disciplined under the Advertising Regulations for joining LawTalk.

The KBA, which had postponed disciplinary actions against lawyers joining LawTalk to observe the Constitutional Court's decision, now plans to proceed with subsequent disciplinary procedures, asserting that the ruling grants constitutional legitimacy to disciplining lawyers for violating the Advertising Regulations by joining LawTalk.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.