Judge Formerly from Law Firm... 'Favoritism to Former Colleagues' Disappears

The "Criminal Procedure Act Amendment" Fully Enforced... Judges Cannot Handle Cases from Former Law Firms for 2 Years

[Asia Economy Reporter Baek Kyunghwan] The 'Post-Employment Favoritism Prevention Act,' which prevents judges with backgrounds as lawyers from issuing rulings favorable to their former law firms, has been officially implemented. Contrary to 'former official favoritism,' where judges or prosecutors turned lawyers secure advantageous positions in trials, this law aims to preemptively block controversies where judges with lawyer backgrounds issue rulings favorable to their previous law firms or companies.

According to the legal community on the 19th, the Ministry of Justice recently began enforcing the 'Criminal Procedure Act Amendment,' which prohibits judges from handling cases related to law firms where they previously worked for two years.

Concerns about post-employment favoritism emerged when the unified legal profession system, appointing experienced lawyers as judges, was implemented in 2013. There have been ongoing criticisms that judges collude with their former law firms or companies.

Although the court, through the 'Regulations on the Division of Duties and Case Assignment of Judges,' prohibited judges from being assigned cases handled by their former law firms for three years after retirement, questions about its effectiveness persisted. This was because the chief judge could assign specific cases to certain judges citing exceptions, leading to widespread opinion that case assignments should be restricted by law rather than court regulations.

The National Assembly also pointed out these issues. During last year's parliamentary audit, Baek Hyeryun, a member of the Democratic Party, stated, "If the unification of the legal profession progresses further, the vast majority of judges will inevitably come from law firms or in-house counsel backgrounds," adding, "Now, the issue of post-employment favoritism has come beyond former official favoritism."

In fact, data submitted by the Supreme Court to the National Assembly last year shows that among the 309 lawyers appointed as judges from 2013, when the unified legal profession system was implemented, until August 2020, 152 (49.1%) came from the 'top 10 law firms.' By firm, 43 were from Kim & Chang Law Office, accounting for 13.9% of the total, followed by Barun, Sejong, and Kwangjang with 22 (7.1%), 20 (6.5%), and 18 (5.8%) respectively. Notable numbers also came from in-house counsel backgrounds at companies or public institutions such as Samsung Electronics, POSCO, LG Chem, and the Financial Supervisory Service.

Accordingly, the Post-Employment Favoritism Prevention Act added disqualification criteria such that if a judge has not passed two years since retiring from a law firm that was the defendant's counsel or representative of the defendant or victim in a case, or if a judge has not passed two years since retiring as an executive or employee of a corporation, institution, or organization that is the defendant, they are disqualified. This applies to limited liability law firms, law cooperatives, law offices, and joint law firms under Article 2, Paragraph 9 of the Foreign Legal Consultant Act.

The legal community views the establishment of post-employment favoritism prevention by law as a significant aid to enhancing trial fairness. By preemptively blocking collusion controversies, it is expected to improve judicial trust in the mid to long term. However, some voices express concerns about side effects of this amendment. A lawyer in Seocho-dong said, "To accurately apply this even in courts with a small number of judges, operational system issues will inevitably arise," adding, "Conversely, defense lawyers who identify the panel might misuse this as a means to avoid certain judges."