'Absence Defeat' Bereaved Families Sue Kwon Kyung-ae for Damages... What Is the Disciplinary Level?

The Korean Bar Association (KBA) has launched a disciplinary investigation against attorney Kwon Kyung-ae, who consecutively failed to appear in school violence lawsuits, resulting in confirmed losses. Although the case has sparked public outrage due to the victim’s family’s story of a school violence victim who took their own life, many predict that severe disciplinary actions such as permanent disbarment will be difficult to impose.

The KBA’s Standing Board of Directors approved a request for an ex officio investigation into attorney Kwon and has begun the related inquiry. The disciplinary process is expected to be completed by August at the latest.

Disciplinary actions against lawyers are categorized as permanent disbarment, disbarment, suspension for up to three years, fines up to 30 million KRW, and reprimands. Disbarment prohibits lawyer activities for five years, while permanent disbarment makes re-registration impossible, effectively banning any legal practice.

However, the consensus is that permanent disbarment is realistically difficult because the requirements are stringent due to its severity. According to Article 91 of the Attorney-at-Law Act, permanent disbarment can occur if a lawyer receives suspension or higher disciplinary actions twice or more and then commits the same disciplinary offense again.

Looking at previous disciplinary cases, attorney A, who received the first-ever permanent disbarment by the KBA in 2018, had undergone three suspensions including a two-month suspension before the permanent disbarment. Similarly, attorney B, who in 2016 caused a client’s lawsuit to be dismissed by failing to appear twice, received the lightest reprimand, a case comparable to attorney Kwon’s.

Attorney Kwon Kyung-ae. [Photo by Yonhap News]

원본보기 아이콘

Attorney Kwon became controversial after it was revealed that she failed to appear in court without permission in a lawsuit representing the family of a school violence victim, leading to a loss.

The victim’s mother, who worked as a cleaning laborer, had persistently pursued lawsuits against the school, the education office, and the perpetrators for about eight years. However, due to this loss, the victim’s family will not receive the 500 million KRW compensation that was partially awarded in the first trial.

There are also predictions that a retrial, which the victim’s family hopes for, will be difficult. This is because the case does not meet the retrial grounds stipulated in Article 451 of the Civil Procedure Act.

This article defines retrial grounds as follows: ▲1) when the court was not properly constituted according to law; ▲2) when a judge who legally could not participate was involved; ▲4) when a judge involved in the trial committed a crime related to their duties; ▲6) when documents or other evidence used in the judgment were forged or altered; ▲8) when the civil or criminal judgment or other administrative disposition forming the basis of the judgment was changed by another judgment or administrative disposition.

However, there is an opinion that attorney Kwon’s negligent defense could be considered under ground 9, “when an important matter affecting the judgment was omitted from consideration.”

The victim’s family plans to first file a damages lawsuit worth around 200 million KRW against attorney Kwon and her law firm. They are also expected to seek remedies such as requesting restoration of appeal rights thereafter.

© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.