Will Police Officers Also Face Restrictions on Preferential Treatment for Retirees?

Amendment to the Public Service Ethics Act Proposed
Stricter Restrictions Extended to Senior Legal Officials

Legislative discussions to prevent conflicts of interest within the legal community are ongoing. Some proposals would prohibit retired high-ranking legal professionals from opening their own law practices for a certain period, or restrict "police officers with attorney qualifications" from joining law firms. Within the legal field, there are opposing views: some criticize these measures as failing to reflect the practical realities, while others argue they are necessary to restore trust in the judiciary.

Expansion of Employment Review for 'Attorney Police Officers'

With increased demand for "police officers with attorney qualifications" due to prosecutorial reform and the abolition of the prosecution service, a bill has been introduced to further restrict their employment.

The Law Times

On March 13, Minjeon Kim, a lawmaker from the People Power Party, sponsored an amendment to the Public Service Ethics Act that would partially restrict post-retirement employment for former police officers with attorney qualifications.

Under the current Public Service Ethics Act, the possibility of post-retirement employment is determined based on the work-relatedness between the agency or department where the official worked during the five years prior to retirement and the prospective employer. Employment is restricted in cases where there is a risk of conflict of interest. However, those with professional qualifications, such as attorneys, are allowed to join law firms (Article 17, Paragraph 7).

The proposed amendment would narrow this exception: if a retired official handled investigation or adjudication work during the five years before leaving public service, the employment restriction would apply without exception, even if the person is a qualified attorney. This move is seen as a response to growing controversy over preferential treatment for former police officers and concerns about fairness in investigations as more police officers with attorney qualifications move to law firms. According to the Ministry of Personnel Management, in February alone, 30 former police officers expressed interest in joining law firms, and 9 of them actually joined.

Three-Year Ban on Opening a Practice After Retirement

Another bill, known as the "Anti-Retired Official Privilege Act," has been introduced to prohibit high-ranking legal professionals from opening their own practices for three years after retirement.

On March 9, independent lawmaker Hyukjin Choi proposed an amendment to the Attorney-at-Law Act that would ban former high-level legal officials—such as the Chief Justice and Justices of the Supreme Court, President and Justices of the Constitutional Court, and the Prosecutor General—from opening their own practices for three years after retirement.

The current Attorney-at-Law Act prohibits former legal officials from taking cases related to their former agencies for one year after retirement.

Additionally, the proposed amendment would extend the period during which former judges, prosecutors, and military legal officers are prohibited from handling cases involving government agencies from the current one year to two years. It would also permanently ban them from handling cases they personally oversaw while in office.

In the 22nd National Assembly, multiple bills have been introduced with the aim of preventing preferential treatment for retired officials.

Within the legal community, opinions are divided between those who see these measures as necessary for restoring trust in the judiciary, and others who argue that such measures fail to reflect changes in the judicial environment, such as an increase in the number of Supreme Court justices.

Imseong Lee (Judicial Research and Training Institute, 21st class), chairperson of the Legal Ethics Council, stated, "These measures go beyond eradicating preferential treatment for retired officials; they are aimed at restoring trust in the judiciary. There needs to be legislation that restricts the legal activities of high-ranking judges to a degree commensurate with the length of their service in senior positions."

On the other hand, a presiding judge at a court in the Seoul metropolitan area commented, "If a larger number of justices are appointed and the retirement age for judges is lowered, restricting their economic activities without any supplementary measures to guarantee their livelihood could lead to competition for other public offices."

Some have suggested a compromise. Hyungkeun Jung (24th class), former dean of Kyung Hee Law School and attorney at The Smart Law Firm, suggested, "Considering the practical career paths of high-ranking judges who retire relatively early, it may be a viable alternative to allow them to open law practices but prohibit them from taking cases under their own name. Employment at law firms could be permitted, but their roles could be limited to advisory work or mentoring junior colleagues."

Reporter Hayoun Seo, The Law Times

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

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