[Law & Story] Time for the Ministry of Justice to Step In on the LawTalk Conflict

A Swift Conclusion Needed on LawTalk-Related Disciplinary Reviews
Disciplinary Actions Pushed Despite Advertising Regulation Being Ruled Unconstitutional
Time to End the Exhausting Debate Over LawTalk's 'Illegality'

Seokjin Choi, Legal Affairs Specialist Reporter.

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin, Legal Affairs Specialist] Objection cases filed by lawyers who received disciplinary notices from the Korean Bar Association (KBA) for joining the legal platform LawTalk have been submitted to the Ministry of Justice this week.

This marks an opportunity for the Ministry of Justice, the supervisory body of the KBA, to finally act as a mediator in the seven-year-long extreme conflict between the KBA and LawTalk.

Since the days of the Lawyers Protecting Their Profession Group, the KBA and the leadership of the Seoul Bar Association have classified LawTalk’s business practices as lawyer solicitation activities violating the current Attorney-at-Law Act. They have repeatedly criminally reported LawTalk’s operators to investigative agencies and pressured lawyers who joined LawTalk to withdraw by using disciplinary measures.

However, the prosecution has consistently ruled ‘no charges’ on the grounds that these actions do not violate current laws, and the police also decided not to prosecute last year. The Ministry of Justice, after legal review, concluded that ‘LawTalk is legal,’ and former Minister Park Beom-gye officially announced this position in August last year.

The Fair Trade Commission, on the contrary, viewed the KBA’s efforts to block lawyers from joining LawTalk as violations of the Fair Trade Act and the Act on Labeling and Advertising, and sent a review report with sanction recommendations in November last year.

Despite this, the KBA completely revised the ‘Advertising Regulations’ targeting LawTalk in May last year and pushed for disciplinary actions against lawyers who joined LawTalk based on violations of these advertising regulations.

The KBA’s unreasonable claims peaked right after the Constitutional Court ruled the core provisions of the newly established advertising regulations unconstitutional in May.

The Constitutional Court declared unconstitutional Article 5, Paragraph 2, Subparagraph 1 (latter part) of the advertising regulations, which directly targeted LawTalk, specifically the clause prohibiting ‘advertising, promoting, or introducing lawyers, etc.’ This clause banned requesting or participating in advertising lawyers through LawTalk, which receives advertising fees, and was found to violate the principle of proportionality by infringing on the freedom of expression and freedom of occupation of LawTalk operators and lawyers.

The Constitutional Court also ruled unconstitutional the part of Article 4, Subparagraph 14 of the advertising regulations concerning ‘advertisements contrary to the association’s authoritative interpretation.’ The Court reasoned that creating advertising prohibition rules that could serve as grounds for disciplinary action but are unpredictable even to the lawyers subject to them and allow arbitrary interpretation by the law enforcement body (the KBA) violates the constitutional principle of legal reservation.

Surprisingly, the KBA issued an unreasonable statement welcoming the Constitutional Court’s constitutional ruling on the advertising regulations banning LawTalk membership, citing the fact that the number of provisions upheld as constitutional was greater than those struck down, and proceeded with disciplinary actions against lawyers who joined LawTalk.

The LawTalk issue is also emerging as the biggest topic in the upcoming KBA presidential election. Among the two candidates currently serving as vice presidents of the KBA, if either becomes the next president, the conflict with LawTalk is expected to intensify further.

Minister of Justice Han Dong-hoon has not yet expressed a clear position on this issue, but it seems unlikely that the previous minister’s conclusion will be overturned. This is not a policy issue that changes with a change of administration or minister, but a matter of legal interpretation regarding whether LawTalk’s business practices are legal or illegal under the current Attorney-at-Law Act and other applicable laws.

We hope that the objection cases will be resolved as quickly and clearly as possible to end the exhausting debate and unnecessary conflict. It is time for Minister Han to make a decisive decision.

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