"Relaxation of Legal Career Requirements to Be Pursued After General Election; Court Chief Candidate Recommendation System to Be Resolved Through Legislation"

Published 19 Feb.2024 15:10(KST)

'Press Conference with Legal Correspondents' Responses

Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae (photo) expressed his conviction at a press conference held on the 15th that the ‘court chief judge candidate recommendation system,’ which had been a hot topic within the judiciary, is a “system that cannot be implemented without legislation.” Chief Justice Cho did not implement the court chief judge candidate recommendation system in the first judicial personnel appointment after his inauguration.

[Image source=Supreme Court]

In addition, he announced that the relaxation of legal career requirements demanded by the ‘unification of the legal profession policy’ will be pursued after the general election. He also emphasized that improvements in judicial treatment should be made by referring to successful overseas cases of judicial reform.

Below is a summary of the Chief Justice’s responses by topic.

The court chief judge candidate recommendation system is a legislative matter

All judges dislike the issue of judicial bureaucratization. However, after the judiciary separated the first and second instance courts, a problem arose where all judges became dependent on the court chief judge as a bureaucrat. The previous Chief Justice introduced the court chief judge candidate recommendation system. At that time, there was a review report investigating legislative cases from various countries, and currently, there is no reported country where court members directly recommend the court chief judge. However, in common law countries, there is a system where residents elect judges and court chief judges. There is no legislative precedent for this. Our Court Organization Act itself does not premise the recommendation of court chief judges.

Therefore, when this issue was discussed at the Supreme Court Justices’ meeting during my tenure as a justice, the previous Chief Justice (Kim Myung-soo) suggested not implementing it immediately everywhere but conducting pilot implementations in a few courts and then discussing the pros and cons in the National Assembly for legislation. However, legislation did not proceed well, and it seems to have expanded nationwide. I do not know the progress after my retirement, but that was the situation while I was there. Ultimately, this is a system that cannot be implemented as is unless done legislatively because it does not fit our system or legislative precedents in any way. In the long term, I plan to listen to the opinions of all members of the judiciary to decide what is the most rational approach so that the court chief judge candidate recommendation system does not become a source of instability in the judiciary. In the second half of the year, I intend to gather opinions from all court members on this issue. I will also inform the members about the future direction of this initiative.

Selection of experienced judges should be like Belgium

It is important not only that the number of judges handling trials increases but also what kind of people the judiciary is composed of. A bill to adjust the career requirements for experienced judges was rejected in the past. We fully accept the legislature’s actions and respect the intent. However, among civil law countries, only Belgium and the Republic of Korea have adopted the experienced judge system. But in practice, there are real difficulties in selecting excellent judicial resources, and Belgium faced the same problem.

Belgium took legislative measures due to judicial delays and aging issues that lowered public trust in the judiciary. The content is to select experienced judges according to each assigned task. For example, assistant judges within 3 years, single-judge trial judges within 7 years, and presiding judges of collegiate panels within 10 years are selected according to their respective career requirements. In the United States, there is basically no collegiate trial in the first instance. The judge only presides, and all conclusions are decided by the public through jury trials. We produce 3,200-page acquittal rulings, but in the U.S., if acquitted, there is no ruling document at all.

The roles under such a system and those of assistant judges in civil law countries are fundamentally different. I believe that about 3 years of experience is appropriate for assistant judges in the Belgian style. For single judges and presiding judges of collegiate panels, I think 7, 10, and 15 years, respectively, are appropriate as pointed out by the National Assembly. The Administrative Office cannot unilaterally decide such matters. I believe that the public, journalists, and media should be openly explained to and their understanding sought so that the public can make the final decision after public discussion. We plan to explain the experienced judge issue to the National Assembly and the public as soon as the general election ends.

Long-term incentives for judges are ‘salary’

High court judges handle trials for 5, 10, or 20 years. The difficulty of cases is high, and physical limits come after 6 to 7 years. In the past, after about 7 years, becoming a court chief judge could provide relief, but now it is tightly blocked. Law firms aggressively recruit such people. Judges are human too. Means to secure them could include giving sabbaticals to recharge after 5 to 10 years of service.

Also, Belgium improved the experienced judge system but also drastically increased salaries. Countries that have recently succeeded in judicial reform, such as Singapore and the UK, recruited excellent talent by significantly raising judges’ salaries. Our fastest means is to secure a budget and raise salaries. When I became a judge, it was true that salaries were higher than other professions, but now that is no longer the case. Judges are human and can easily be swayed when tempted if they are tired or struggling. It is impossible for judges to act like saints. Salary increases, expanded opportunities for overseas training, and providing sabbaticals are necessary so judges can catch their breath.

Agree with disclosure of rulings but it is a legislative issue

The scope of disclosure of rulings has been expanded through legislation. However, when disclosing, anonymization must be done, and the anonymization work is stipulated so that ‘judicial officials are not held responsible unless there is intentional or gross negligence.’ In other words, as Chief Justice, I support disclosure, but the people who will be held responsible later are judicial officials. Also, anonymization requires budget and costs. Conversely, I would like to suggest that the Korean Bar Association and the media jointly form a task force to legislate the disclosure issue. The public’s right to know is important, but it is also important to judges. Judges devote 70% of their energy to rulings and feel the greatest pride in them. Since judges can feel the reward and pride of becoming judges through the disclosure of rulings they wrote, I think disclosure should be made from this perspective as well.

The judiciary should have budget formulation and bill submission rights

I would like to propose two things. The media and others criticize why the Judicial Administration Office is becoming bloated, but I want to talk about ‘budget formulation rights’ in return. The judiciary’s budget is less than 0.5% of the total national budget, but it would be good if the judiciary could autonomously formulate its budget within that range. The same goes for ‘bill submission rights.’ If the judiciary had the right to submit bills, it could create proposals and directly persuade the public on issues such as ruling disclosure and experienced judges. But currently, there is no authority at all, so the judiciary has to ask the political sphere, and then the political sphere has no choice but to ask the judiciary. Although slow, this path is necessary to avoid such a structure.