Lawyers’ group wins in ‘<a href="https://www.world-today-news.com/fair-trade-commission-judges-that-korean-bar-association-limited-consumer-choice/" title="Fair Trade Commission judges that Korean Bar Association limited consumer choice”>Rotalk dispute’… The future outlook is
Possibility of disciplinary action against ‘Rotalk lawyer’
“Flexible regulatory authority for the Bar Association”
Restrictions on similar services are likely to worsen
The threshold for consumers is higher
There are concerns about “going backwards in the AI era”
As the court issued a ruling in favor of lawyer groups such as the Korean Bar Association, which had opposed the online legal service platform ‘Rotalk’, there are speculations that disciplinary action against lawyers who subscribe to Rotalk may resume in the future. Following LoTalk, there are concerns that the entire ‘Legal Tech’ (a compound word of law and technology) services, such as the introduction of ‘AI (artificial intelligence) legal service’, may hit a wall.
The fight between Lotalk and the Bar Association goes back 10 years. In 2014, Lotalk introduced an online platform that connects lawyers and clients. Citizens with little legal knowledge commented favorably, saying that the threshold for using legal services had been lowered. Even young lawyers with relatively low recognition were able to use Rotalk as a stepping stone to expand their scope of activity.
Lawyers’ groups protested. The Korean Bar Association argued that RoTalk violated the Attorney Act and that it would result in lawyers being subordinated to the RoTalk platform like other industries. The Korean Bar Association filed a criminal complaint against Rotalk, but when the charges were acquitted, it created a new clause in the Lawyer’s Bill of Ethics and took disciplinary action against 123 lawyers who signed up with Rotalk based on this. The logic of the Bar Association is that Lotalk connects lawyers and consumers in exchange for advertising fees, which is a violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act because non-lawyers receive money to arrange for lawyers.
The fight seemed to be coming to an end when the Ministry of Justice, which acknowledged the positive effects of LoTalk, put the brakes on the disciplinary action in September last year, saying the disciplinary action was unfair, and the Fair Trade Commission imposed a fine of 1 billion won each on the Korean Bar Association and the Seoul Bar Association.
However, the Bar Association knocked on the court’s door, and the Seoul High Court ruled in favor of the Bar Association. According to the Seoul High Court’s ruling on the 24th, the court acknowledged that both the disciplinary action imposed by the Bar Association and the request to withdraw from Lotalk fell within “reasonable discretion.” The court stated that the Bar Association’s regulation was public, saying, “We exercised our supervisory authority with the purpose of regulating advertisements that may undermine the public nature of lawyers or the fair order of legal representation, or cause harm to consumers.” At the same time, it was ruled that the Korean Bar Association has the authority to “flexibly and flexibly regulate” in an environment where new platforms can emerge as science and technology develops.
With this ruling, the Korean Bar Association’s regulations on legal service platforms such as LoTalk are expected to be further strengthened. The Korean Bar Association issued a statement on the 25th and said, “This is a ruling that recognizes the Bar Association’s appropriate review and screening authority for the legal tech industry.” At the same time, the Korean Bar Association said, “It is not our intention to block technological development.”
However, there are concerns in the lawyer industry that the Bar Association’s regulations will limit the overall growth of Legal Tech beyond Law Talk in the future. In fact, the Korean Bar Association decided to initiate disciplinary action against Daeryuk Aju Law Firm and its lawyers, claiming that the ’24-hour free chatbot AI service’ recently introduced by Daeryuk Aju law firm violated the Attorney General Act. Currently, related AI services have been discontinued.
Lim Ji-bong, a professor at Sogang University Law School, pointed out, “In an era where AI is emerging and technology is developing day by day, regulation alone cannot be the answer.” An official from the legal tech industry said, “We must pursue harmony between advancing technology and the legal market, but ultimately move in the direction of increasing the convenience of the public, who are legal consumers.”
