'99% win rate,' zero wins: Attorney misconduct cases surge in South Korea

As competition among attorneys intensifies, misleading advertisements that distort clients' ability to make informed choices and undermine the fairness of legal proceedings are on the rise. The Ministry of Justice said it plans to form a dedicated investigation team to expedite the handling of attorney regulation violations and strengthen disciplinary measures.

The ministry said Thursday that advertising violation cases filed with the Attorney Disciplinary Committee surged from one case out of 10 total in 2021 to 88 out of 124 total last year. Of the 114 cases currently pending before the committee, 79 involve advertising violations.

According to the ministry, Law Firm A advertised on its website that it had ranked first in a "customer-preferred brand index" for three consecutive years — a claim that turned out to be a paid marketing placement with no independently verified basis.

Law Firm B joined a group chat for people involved in the same legal dispute and told members their chances of winning stood at "90 percent or higher" and that damages claims were "99 percent likely to succeed." The firm signed retainer agreements with those it recruited but ultimately lost every case.

Law Firm C, which employs attorneys who previously served as judges, prosecutors and police officers, violated advertising rules by marketing itself as a firm of "revolving-door attorneys" and advertising "free case analysis and sentencing prediction services before retainer." After further investigation, the ministry determined that the firm's promotion of its attorneys' prior government careers went beyond simple profile listings and amounted to implying undue influence.

The ministry said it has set a policy of strengthening investigations into attorneys who neglect their duties and handling such cases swiftly and strictly. Attorney D, for example, ignored a court order to correct a filing after taking on a client's case, creating a risk that the suit would be dismissed. D also pressured the client to give false testimony in a separate case in which D was under investigation and received a six-month suspension.

Attorney E used an online platform to take on a large volume of cases at low fees, then either gave incorrect legal advice or performed no work at all. When clients demanded refunds, E threatened to file criminal complaints against them for obstruction of business. E received a one-year suspension.

Attorney F accepted a retainer of 20 million won ($13,200) but delayed drafting a retainer agreement, never reviewed the investigation records and neglected the case entirely. F also lost original evidence documents sent by the client and lied about being hospitalized to avoid appearing at a witness examination hearing. F was disbarred. Attorney G was also disbarred after misappropriating 300 million won in court deposit funds to pay personal debts.

The ministry said it has established a policy of prioritizing the most serious violations, moving away from the previous practice of relying solely on records transferred from the Korean Bar Association. It plans to form a dedicated team to investigate and review cases using a range of methods, ensuring that disciplinary decisions reflect the true nature of each violation.

The ministry said attorneys who cause clients serious psychological or financial harm will face heavy sanctions based on a strict assessment of the number of violations, the scale of damages and the client's wishes. It also said it has not lost a single lawsuit filed by disciplined attorneys seeking to overturn their sanctions.

"We plan to expand the Attorney Disciplinary Committee's sessions from about three times a year to six this year and streamline the review process to handle more cases per session," a ministry official said. "We will continue to strengthen our review capacity and work to build a legal market where the public can feel safe."

Meanwhile, the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office said Tuesday that it arrested, detained and indicted Attorney H for embezzling 300 million won in escrow funds. Police had originally investigated the case and referred H to prosecutors without detention. Prosecutors, noting that H had committed the offense despite already facing indictment on similar charges, sought an arrest warrant.

H failed to appear at the warrant hearing and fled. Prosecutors said they analyzed CCTV footage from traffic control centers, credit card transaction records and call logs to track down H's whereabouts and movements, then conducted two consecutive nights of stakeouts before making the arrest.

"During our direct investigation, we also obtained a confession regarding a separate case that police were investigating and notified the relevant police jurisdiction — working in close coordination throughout," a Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office official said.