In the Korean court, there is a unique, yet very unwholesome practice ― judges and prosecutors give preferential treatment to cases handled by their former colleagues who have gone into private practice.
Because of this advantage, retired judges and prosecutors have a higher rate of winning cases in their first years as attorneys, which means they easily get more clients and make more money than their competitors.
Strictly speaking, this amounts to corruption or at least collusion, and there have been public calls to address the problem, but the practice has persisted.
The issue came to the fore again recently ― this time over a former Supreme Court justice seeking to join a major law firm.
Saying the former justice, Cha Ha-sung, could benefit from the unethical practice, the Korean Bar Association sent back the papers Cha had filed to open legal service.
Because Cha already has a lawyer’s license, there are no legal grounds for the bar association to reject Cha’s registration for opening a private practice. Some also point out that the KBA’s action infringes upon Cha’s right to choose his occupation.
Cha also insisted that he wanted to join the law firm not to serve as a court attorney but as the head of a public welfare foundation to be run by the firm.
But from an ethical point of view, the bar association’s position should get support. It is right for the association to say that Supreme Court justices should not open private practices after retirement because their engagements could influence the rulings of his former colleagues in the top court and other junior judges.
The Cha case should put fresh pressure on the nation’s legal community to terminate the unjustifiable practice. Most of all, judicial justice could be compromised by the “special consideration” given to cases being handled by former judges and prosecutors.
Were it not for the favors, people seeking legal assistance would not prefer attorneys who have previously served as judges or prosecutors. So it is natural that lawyers who have retired from the court and the prosecution command high fees in the first years of their private service.
The fees are much higher when one buys the services of former Supreme Court justices like Cha. In a recent case, Ahn Dae-hee, a former justice of the top court, was found to have earned as much as 2.7 billion won in 10 months of private practice. This cost Ahn the prime minister’s seat because he had to forfeit his nomination due to the public outcry over the wealth he accumulated by taking advantage of the privileges given to retired judges.
As the Ahn case showed, the deep-rooted practice deepens public distrust of the nation’s judiciary system and antagonism against legal professionals who are obsessed with making money.
The KBA said it has asked the speaker of the National Assembly to take a written promise from Park Sang-ok, a candidate for the Supreme Court justice who is to undergo a parliamentary confirmation hearing, that he will not open a private practice after retirement.
This is not a bad idea, but it still is not legally binding. Nor could we expect all retirees to voluntarily shun private practice ― as most in foreign countries and some in Korea do.
Which is why we are upset over the fact that the Supreme Court, i.e. Chief Justice Yang Seung-tae, remains silent over the Cha case. Effective, enforceable rules must be made by the top court.
