Prosecutors: "Difficult to View as Introducing, Referring, or Inducing Specific Lawyers"
Lawyer Group: "LawTalk Refers to Specific Lawyers... Collecting Case Law by Unfair Means"
[Asia Economy Reporter Heo Kyung-jun] The prosecution has decided not to indict the online legal platform "Lotok," which was accused of violating the Attorney-at-Law Act and other charges.
The Criminal Division 6 of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office (Chief Prosecutor Kang Beom-gu) announced on the 11th that after review by the prosecution's citizen committee regarding the case of alleged violations of the Attorney-at-Law Act and the Personal Information Protection Act against Ro & Company and CEO Kim Bon-hwan, they decided not to indict.
The Lawyer Defense Group (Standing Representative Kim Jung-wook) filed a complaint with the prosecution in November 2020, alleging that Lotok, by opening a website and app, limited exposure at the top of search lists only to lawyers who paid advertising fees among those registered on Lotok, thereby introducing, recommending, and attracting users to specific lawyers, violating the Attorney-at-Law Act.
The Bar Association claimed that Lotok, despite not being a lawyer, received money and provided expected punishments, sentences, and sentencing rates through its "AI Sentencing Prediction Service," thereby handling legal affairs and advertising itself as offering services "from sentence prediction to lawyer consultation" for profit, which constitutes handling legal affairs. They also alleged that Lotok collected precedents containing personal information through improper means.
Regarding the alleged violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act, the prosecution judged that ▲ all registered lawyers can be searched on the Lotok website and app regardless of advertising fee payment, and the consultation process with lawyers is the same ▲ consultation fees from users are paid directly to the respective lawyers ▲ Lotok operates as a platform that does not receive consultation or case-related fees from lawyers other than advertising fees, making it difficult to view these actions as introducing, recommending, or attracting specific lawyers, and thus dismissed the charges.
Furthermore, the AI Sentencing Prediction Service is provided free of charge, so it does not constitute the handling of legal affairs by a non-lawyer. The prosecution also judged that Lotok's advertising phrases such as "Case diagnosis by a lawyer in 15 minutes" and "When you need a lawyer, Lotok" alone are unlikely to lead the general public to perceive that "Lotok directly handles legal affairs."
Regarding the claim of collecting precedents containing personal information, the prosecution also dismissed the charges. Lotok collected precedents through the court website's judgment document viewing service, and considering that there were no suspicious records of improper access such as traffic overload on the court website, there was no evidence to recognize that improper means or methods were used in the process of collecting judgment documents.
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
