Controversy Over Elite Judges Including High Court Judges Joining Major Law Firms After Resignation

Controversy Surrounds Deputy Chief of Public Corruption Investigation Office Joining Major Law Firm

As heavyweight judges with around 15 years of experience, considered the backbone of the court, are consecutively moving to large law firms, there are calls both inside and outside the judiciary for extraordinary measures to prevent the outflow of top court talent. It is argued that the scope of employment restrictions under the Public Officials Ethics Act should be expanded to curb the movement of elite judges such as the ‘Article 10 judges’ and the Supreme Court’s Chief Research Officers to law firms. There is also controversy over the issue of fairness regarding former senior officials of the High-ranking Officials’ Crime Investigation Agency (HOCI), who are not subject to employment restrictions, unlike other former legal officials.

Retirement Rush Ahead of Local Assignments

[Image source=Beomryul Newspaper]

The exodus from the courts is being led by the Article 10 judges. Since the dual personnel system for judges was implemented in 2011, separating personnel appointments between district courts and high courts, judges with over 15 years of experience at the level of district court chief judges have been promoted to high court judges under Article 10 of the Judges Personnel Rules. However, their resignation rate has reached 27.9% as of this month.

While resignations among Article 10 judges were limited to one or two per year in the past, the number exceeded double digits in 2020 (11 judges), increasing to 13 in 2022 and 16 in 2023. This year, 15 judges have resigned, with more than half moving to large law firms.

A representative reason for submitting resignations is the exchange between metropolitan and provincial posts. Rather than living apart from their families in the provinces, judges choose to stay in Seoul by moving to law firms. Originally, the dual personnel system was designed so that high court judges would not be sent to provinces unless under special circumstances, but due to the need to maintain parity with district court chief judges, they became subject to metropolitan-provincial exchanges, removing incentives to serve long-term in one location.

The trend of job changes is spreading even to the Supreme Court’s top brains, such as the Chief Research Officers (chief judges). Two chief judges who served as Chief Research Officers until last year resigned ahead of this year’s regular personnel appointments and moved to the law firms Sejong and Yulchon, respectively.

In 2022, a Chief Research Officer also resigned and moved to a large law firm a few months later. Under the current Public Officials Ethics Act, judges at the level of high court chief judges or above are restricted from employment at large law firms for three years, but high court judges and Chief Research Officers (chief judges) are not subject to this restriction.

A chief judge at the Seoul Central District Court pointed out, “The restriction on employment for high court chief judges originates from concerns that cases handled before retirement may relate to law firm work, but since the high court chief judge system has been abolished, the person handling such cases is now the high court judge.”

Especially, the Chief Research Officer position is deeply familiar with Supreme Court cases, making it the most sought-after position for law firms to recruit without being subject to employment restrictions under the Public Officials Ethics Act.

A high court judge said, “In the past, it was natural to serve as a Chief Research Officer and not consider opening a private practice for several years afterward. Since the situation has changed, a re-discussion on employment restrictions is necessary.”

Former HOCI Officials Moving to Large Law Firms Also Under Scrutiny

Recently, there has been criticism over former HOCI Deputy Chief Yeowoon-guk moving to a large law firm after completing his term.

Compared to prosecutors at the level of senior prosecutors at the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office, who are subject to a three-year employment review restriction under the Public Officials Ethics Act, this is seen as unfair.

Although the HOCI Deputy Chief cannot take on cases related to the agency as a lawyer after retirement under the HOCI Act, they are not subject to the employment review institution restrictions.

A lawyer who served as president of a provincial bar association said, “From a general public perspective, the HOCI Deputy Chief seems to be a high-ranking official equivalent to a high court chief judge or a senior prosecutor. Since HOCI is a newly established institution, there has not been an opportunity for in-depth discussion before, so it is time to revise related provisions to meet the public’s expectations.”

Park Su-yeon, Han Su-hyun, Legal Times reporters

※This article is based on content supplied by Law Times.

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