[Inside Chodong] For the Law to Be Equal for Everyone

Attorney Jeong Soon-shin, who was appointed as the new head of the National Investigation Headquarters of the National Police Agency, resigned after just one day due to a school violence issue involving his child. Amid heightened social awareness fueled by the popularity of dramas dealing with school violence and successive allegations against celebrities, public criticism surged more than ever. While Jeong’s son, the perpetrator, was expelled by the School Violence Countermeasure Autonomous Committee but later went through retrials and administrative lawsuits, even obtaining a stay of execution on the committee’s decision, and eventually entered a top-tier university, the victim was unable to maintain normal academic life due to psychological distress. This revelation sparked even greater public outrage. It was also revealed that Jeong, who was serving as a prosecutor at the time, directly participated in drafting his son’s statement, exploiting loopholes in the legal system. It is unimaginable how powerless and devastated the victim must have felt throughout this process.

Online, many comments empathized with the severity of school violence and demanded stricter punishments. Among them, a particularly striking cynical remark was, “Given this reality, would I be able to properly respond if my child were assaulted by a so-called ‘powerful’ child of the privileged class?” Comments continued with sentiments like, “I don’t even know a single lawyer nearby; where should a school violence victim turn to?” and “No matter how competent a lawyer you hire, can you really win against someone like a sitting prosecutor?” These reflect not only anger toward school violence but also the widespread fear among most citizens about engaging in lawsuits and legal disputes, feeling helpless in pursuing legal procedures to protect themselves despite suffering unfair harm, and distrust toward law enforcement and the judiciary.

The Korea Fair Trade Commission recently issued corrective orders and imposed the maximum fine of 1 billion won each on the Korean Bar Association and the Seoul Bar Association for banning their affiliated lawyers from using the legal service platform ‘LawTalk.’ The commission judged that these associations violated the Fair Trade Act by restricting free competition among lawyers and consumers’ right to choose. Although the number of lawyers in Korea exceeds 30,000, the threshold for ordinary citizens to access legal services remains high in a legal market already plagued by severe information asymmetry. Finding a lawyer specialized in a particular case is difficult, and even if one makes the effort to seek legal consultation, the fees are often exorbitant, leading many to give up on litigation. Legal platforms were created to address this issue. Lawyers pay advertising fees to promote their specialties, alma maters, and experience, and also disclose consultation fees and basic fees by case type. For example, LawTalk introduces 69 specialized lawyers when searching for ‘school violence’ on its website or app and informs that a 15-minute phone consultation costs at least 20,000 won. Client reviews and ratings are also available.

Concerns from the Bar Association about false or exaggerated advertisements on legal platforms and the risk of lawyers becoming subordinate to capital must be seriously considered. However, as with other emerging platform businesses, these are matters for the market and consumers to judge, and any side effects should be minimized through solutions found by the industry and relevant authorities. Ordinary citizens, who should be able to live ‘without needing the law,’ currently have nowhere to easily ask or discuss even basic legal knowledge. In a reality where the fundamental principle that all citizens are equal before the law and no one should enjoy privileges under the law is being denied, consumers’ demands to use legal services more conveniently and affordably can no longer be blocked nor justified to be blocked.