Commenting on Portals, Painting Murals, Attending General Meetings, Responding to Surveys... Are These Really Considered Lawyers' Public Interest Activities?

Published 24 Jul.2025 07:00(KST)

Focusing on Meeting Hour Requirements Instead of Providing Legal Support
Information on Public Interest Activities Remains "Undisclosed"

Despite the Attorney-at-Law Act mandating public interest activities, genuine pro bono legal support remains stagnant. While many lawyers and law firms emphasize social responsibility and are expanding the scope of their public interest activities, critics point out that the essence of public interest obligations?legal support?often amounts to little more than fulfilling formal time requirements.

According to the Seoul Bar Association's "Guidelines for Reviewing Public Interest Activities," providing a single answer on Naver Knowledge iN is recognized as one hour of public interest activity. Attending general meetings, responding to surveys, donating five books to a charity bazaar, and in-house counseling are also counted as public interest activities. Donating 30,000 won to a public interest organization is credited as one hour of activity.

Photo to aid understanding of the article. Pixabay.

Article 27 of the Attorney-at-Law Act stipulates that all lawyers must engage in a certain number of hours of public interest activities each year (Paragraph 1). Each local bar association, including the Seoul Bar Association, sets this requirement at 20 to 30 hours per year, but the scope and criteria for such activities are determined by the Korean Bar Association (hereafter "KBA") (Paragraph 3).

However, lawyers affiliated with law firms can count a portion of the hours performed by dedicated public interest lawyers toward their own requirements, making it possible to fulfill the obligation regardless of actual participation. Since 2015, the annual allocation limit per dedicated public interest lawyer has been set at 200 hours.

The problem is that there is no disclosure of which activities individual lawyers report as public interest work, nor how much of that constitutes actual pro bono legal support. Most local bar associations do not separately disclose the average public interest activity hours per lawyer. The KBA also treats this as confidential information.

Some major law firms publish their own annual public interest activity reports. However, these reports often highlight general volunteer activities, such as making kimchi in winter or painting murals, rather than pro bono legal work. In 2024, one major law firm reported a total of 13,480 hours of public interest activities, of which 4,745 hours were non-legal volunteer work. One lawyer, who requested anonymity, said, "Just handling one public interest case can easily exceed 20 hours," and noted that "lawyers often find pro bono activities bothersome and inconvenient." He added, "While public interest activities are needed in various fields, some activities recognized under current regulations are questionable as to whether they truly qualify as public interest work."

The American Bar Association (ABA) recommends at least 50 hours of pro bono work per year. The ABA only recognizes free or low-cost legal support for public interest organizations or vulnerable groups as public interest activity, and does not allow lawyers to rely on the mediation or assistance of dedicated public interest lawyers within firms. Individual lawyers autonomously perform these activities and report directly to the association.

Australia's APBC (Australian Pro Bono Centre) is also a government-initiated intermediary that supports matching between law firms and civil organizations, thereby contributing to the practical expansion of pro bono work.

Against this backdrop, some in the legal community suggest that instead of imposing legal sanctions for insufficient or non-existent public interest activities, a "pledge system" could be a viable alternative. At the "Policy Forum for Expanding Law Firm Pro Bono," held on July 18, Lee Heesook (age 45, Judicial Research and Training Institute class 37), a lawyer at the Dongcheon Foundation, explained, "In other countries, individual lawyers autonomously set and transparently disclose their participation hours and activity details. These criteria are reflected in internal law firm evaluations, personnel decisions, and case assignments." Lee added, "Expressing the intention to participate and pledging to act can be more effective than mandatory requirements."