[Seocho-dong Legal Talk] How to Handle the Controversial 'Rotok' Disciplinary Action

Ministry of Justice "Legal" vs. Bar Association "Disciplinary Enforcement"

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin, Legal Affairs Specialist] Although the Ministry of Justice has reiterated its position that the online legal platform ‘Lotok’ is ‘legal,’ the Korean Bar Association (KBA) insists on maintaining disciplinary measures against lawyers registered with Lotok, making it unlikely that confusion will be avoided in the near future.

The basis for the disciplinary action is Article 5, Paragraph 2 of the recently revised ‘Regulations on Lawyer Advertising’ by the KBA. This regulation, which came into effect on the 4th, explicitly includes the use of platforms like Lotok that receive advertising fees for advertising as a prohibited type of lawyer advertising method.

Although the regulation does not have retroactive effect, if lawyers who have been reported to the KBA for being registered with Lotok do not withdraw from Lotok even after the implementation of the revised regulation, they will inevitably become subject to disciplinary action for violating this regulation. The types of disciplinary actions the KBA can impose on its members for violating association rules include ▲expulsion ▲suspension for up to three years ▲a fine of up to 30 million KRW ▲and a reprimand.

So, will the KBA’s disciplinary measures actually be effective?

The Ministry of Justice Disciplinary Committee, chaired by the Minister of Justice, has the authority to review appeals against the KBA’s disciplinary decisions.

A Ministry of Justice official stated, “If an appeal against disciplinary action is deemed valid, appropriate disciplinary measures must be taken accordingly, and if there are no grounds for discipline, the disciplinary action can be canceled.”

On the other hand, the KBA said, “The Ministry of Justice’s declaration of legality pertains to violations of the Attorney-at-Law Act, while disciplinary actions are imposed for violations of internal regulations. Since the violation of the regulations is very clear, the Ministry of Justice Disciplinary Committee may adjust the severity of the punishment but is unlikely to cancel the disciplinary action.”

In fact, if disciplinary action is taken and an appeal is filed, the Ministry of Justice, which supervises the KBA, may again face the question of whether it has the authority to cancel the KBA’s regulations or ethical code resolutions.

If the KBA’s position is that violating the regulations made through proper procedures automatically warrants disciplinary action, the Ministry of Justice’s position is that the validity of those regulations themselves can also be challenged.

If the Ministry of Justice Disciplinary Committee does not cancel the KBA’s disciplinary action but only reduces the severity, the disciplined lawyer can file an administrative lawsuit, but if the disciplinary action is canceled, the KBA cannot appeal.

Currently, the police are investigating allegations of violations of the Attorney-at-Law Act related to Lotok, and the Fair Trade Commission is conducting an investigation into violations of the Act on Labeling and Advertising.

Following the prosecution’s decision of no charges and the Ministry of Justice’s statement that the Lotok service does not violate the Attorney-at-Law Act, the issue ultimately lies in the effectiveness of the revised advertising regulations that the KBA amended to indirectly restrain Lotok. This will be finally decided based on the Constitutional Court’s judgment on whether these regulations infringe on professional freedom and freedom of expression.