"Counseling Society's Disciplinary Action Against Professor for Inappropriate Relationship with Counseling and Guidance Student Deemed Justified"

A professor who was disciplined for having an inappropriate relationship with a student under counseling and guidance filed an appeal after losing the first trial against a psychological counseling-related academic society. Photo is unrelated to the article content.

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Daehyun] A professor who was disciplined for having an inappropriate relationship with a student under counseling and guidance filed an appeal lawsuit against a psychological counseling-related academic society but lost in the first trial.

According to the court on the 22nd, the Civil Division 41 of the Seoul Central District Court (Presiding Judge Jeong Bonggi) ruled against Professor A in the first trial of the lawsuit seeking nullification of a 3-year qualification suspension imposed by Society B, which oversees counseling-related academic research and certification issuance.

Previously, Professor A was dismissed by a university in 2020 for having an inappropriate relationship with a graduate student he was supervising while serving as the head professor of the counseling department at the graduate school of a certain university. The university classified Professor A’s conduct as a 'sexual misconduct related offense,' which does not fall under sexual harassment, prostitution, or sexual violence. Professor A filed a lawsuit against the university seeking nullification of the dismissal, and after losing in the first and second trials, the appeal is currently pending at the Supreme Court.

In this context, Society B disciplined Professor A with a 3-year suspension of his professional counselor qualification, stating that he violated the society’s code of ethics by having a 'romantic relationship' or other sexual relations with a student who was both a client and a trainee. In response, Professor A filed a lawsuit against Society B seeking nullification of the disciplinary action.

In the lawsuit against the society, he argued that "since the related case (the dismissal nullification lawsuit) is ongoing, the society should have halted the disciplinary procedure but proceeded with the disciplinary action," claiming procedural defects. He also denied having a 'sexual relationship,' which implies sexual intercourse, with the reporting student, stating that they were not in a counselor-client or counselor-trainee relationship.

The first trial ruled against the plaintiff. The court emphasized, "The plaintiff was the graduate advisor of the complainant and the supervisor of the complainant’s training for obtaining the counseling certification administered by the society," and added, "The complainant took five psychology and counseling-related courses opened by the plaintiff and participated as a group member in group counseling sessions where the plaintiff was the counselor."

Regarding the meaning of the 'sexual relationship' that was the cause of the disciplinary action, the court stated, "The society’s code of ethics distinguishes between 'sexual relationship' and 'any form of intimate relationship.' 'Sexual relationship' refers to relationships involving sexual acts including sexual physical contact, while 'any form of intimate relationship' refers to other social relationships." It also pointed out, "It is difficult to consider a counselor having sexual physical contact with a trainee as appropriate training and supervision for the trainee studying counseling."

The court emphasized the society’s regulation that "a counselor can strongly influence the psychological state of a client during or after counseling, and this influence must be prevented from being abused." It added, "Clients disclose all their intimate stories to counselors, become emotionally dependent on them, and feel strong intimacy, making them extremely vulnerable to counselors’ sexual advances. Psychological and counseling societies domestically and internationally prohibit counselors from having sexual relationships with clients and forbid sexual intimacy with clients for 2 to 3 years even after counseling ends."

Furthermore, the court rejected the claim of procedural defects, stating, "The society’s code of ethics enforcement rules do not impose an obligation on the society to necessarily suspend disciplinary procedures until the related case is concluded." Professor A has appealed the first trial ruling.