Seoul Bar Considers Introducing "Caution Law Firm Designation" and Business Suspension System

Published 29 Jul.2025 07:03(KST)

Seoul Bar Association Conducts Member Survey
"Sharp Increase in Complaints Against Certain Network Law Firms"

The Seoul Bar Association (hereinafter referred to as the Seoul Bar) is currently considering the introduction of a "Designation of Law Firms to Be Cautious of When Retaining for Cases" (tentative name, hereinafter referred to as the "Caution Law Firm Designation System") and a "Law Firm Business Suspension" system. On July 24, the Seoul Bar announced in a press release that it is "conducting a survey among its members" to introduce these systems. Depending on the survey results, the Seoul Bar is also considering proposing the introduction of related systems to the National Assembly and the Ministry of Justice.

The "Caution Law Firm Designation System" is a system that provides potential clients with advance notice about law firms that require caution during the case retention process. The Seoul Bar cited Article 76, Paragraph 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act as the basis for its review. Article 76, Paragraph 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act stipulates that "local bar associations must provide clients with information necessary for the retention of attorneys, such as members' educational backgrounds, career histories, main practice areas, and work records, in order to facilitate clients' selection of attorneys and ensure transparency in the retention of legal cases or legal work."

Seoul Bar Association. Yonhap News.

The Seoul Bar structured the survey into a total of six questions, covering whether law firms exhibiting certain business models are causing a decline in trust in the legal profession overall, whether the introduction of such a system is necessary, and how the system should be operated if introduced. The survey will be conducted until August 14, and the Seoul Bar plans to comprehensively collect opinions on whether and how to introduce the system.

The Seoul Bar explained the background for considering such systems by stating, "The so-called 'network·advertising-driven law firms,' which establish branch offices nationwide and take on large volumes of cases, have caused a severe decline in trust in the entire legal profession due to inappropriate case handling." The Seoul Bar also noted, "The number of legal service damage relief applications filed with the Korea Consumer Agency has reached 289 cases in the past four years and two months, showing an annual increase," and added, "Of these, applications against just three law firms known as network·advertising-driven law firms have reached 100 cases, indicating a sharp rise in complaints against certain network·advertising-driven law firms."

If the systems under consideration are introduced, significant repercussions are expected in the market. Some agree with the purpose of the system and argue that it should have been introduced in advance before the problem escalated. On the other hand, others claim that it could undermine the free economic order and infringe on fundamental rights.

A mid-career attorney operating a small law firm in the legal district of Seocho-dong, Seoul, said, "The fact that numerous complaints have been filed with the Consumer Agency is a serious warning sign," and added, "The repeated occurrence of damages in the attorney profession, which is based on trust, demonstrates the need for regulation."

In contrast, an industry insider stated, "It could violate the constitutional freedom to choose an occupation (Article 15) and the principle of a free market economy (Article 119)," and added, "The system under review presupposes a negative stigma against network-type or advertising-driven law firms themselves." Another industry insider also said, "Even if clients are exposed to advertisements, they can sufficiently choose their legal representatives through consultations with attorneys," and warned, "There is a risk that the system could undermine the free market economic order."

Jo Wonik (40, 3rd Bar Exam), an attorney at Law Firm Logos, said, "I agree with the intention to provide information about law firms to protect the right to know of legal consumers," but also pointed out, "Article 76, Paragraph 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act does not explicitly state that information about 'law firms' can be provided, so guiding clients to law firms requiring caution may restrict rights." Attorney Jo emphasized, "If the system is implemented, procedural legitimacy must be ensured, such as guaranteeing the opportunity for the law firms concerned to state their opinions."

Kim Giwon (40, 5th Bar Exam), Senior Vice President of the Seoul Bar, said, "The Caution Law Firm Designation System is intended to raise awareness of issues such as inappropriate case retention by network law firms and to establish effective regulatory measures," and added, "We will gather a variety of opinions and conduct thorough discussions."