News and developments
Recent Developments Regarding Attorney-Client Privilege in Korea
the Korean police and prosecutors have seized confidential attorney-client communications, even those under the custody of attorneys.[1]
This article provides an overview of attorney-client privilege in Korea – its scope and limitations – and analyzes the implications of a recent Seoul Southern District Court case in which Lee & Ko successfully protected attorney-client communications from unlawful seizure.
Footnotes [1] The Seoul Southern District Court case discussed in this newsletter is the latest installment to a series of criminal investigations that have involved the seizure of attorney-client communications. In 2019, the prosecution seized communications under the possession of a law firm defending a chemical company. In 2022, the prosecution raided another law firm representing a defendant in a high-profile corruption case. [2] See Article 26 of the Attorneys-At-Law Act, Article 149 of the Criminal Procedural Act, and Article 315 of the Civil Procedural Act [3] Article 12(4) of the Korean Constitution (“Any person who is arrested or detained shall have the right to prompt assistance of counsel. When a criminal defendant is unable to secure counsel by his or her own efforts, the State shall assign counsel for the defendant as prescribed by Act.”) [4] Seoul High Court Judgment No. 2008No2778 dated 26 June 2009 [5] Korean Supreme Court en banc Judgment No. 2009Do6788 dated 17 May 2012 [6] Sohn, C. (2019). Protection on Confidential Communications between Attorney and Client - Acknowledgment of Attorney - Client Privilege and Interpretation of Relevant Statutes. Journal of Legal Studies [7] Seoul Southern District Court Decision No. 2023Bo4 dated 23 February 2024
- An Overview of Attorney-Client Privilege in Korea
- The Korean Courts’ Evolving Position on Attorney-Client Privilege
- Implications of the Seoul Southern District Court’s Ruling
Footnotes [1] The Seoul Southern District Court case discussed in this newsletter is the latest installment to a series of criminal investigations that have involved the seizure of attorney-client communications. In 2019, the prosecution seized communications under the possession of a law firm defending a chemical company. In 2022, the prosecution raided another law firm representing a defendant in a high-profile corruption case. [2] See Article 26 of the Attorneys-At-Law Act, Article 149 of the Criminal Procedural Act, and Article 315 of the Civil Procedural Act [3] Article 12(4) of the Korean Constitution (“Any person who is arrested or detained shall have the right to prompt assistance of counsel. When a criminal defendant is unable to secure counsel by his or her own efforts, the State shall assign counsel for the defendant as prescribed by Act.”) [4] Seoul High Court Judgment No. 2008No2778 dated 26 June 2009 [5] Korean Supreme Court en banc Judgment No. 2009Do6788 dated 17 May 2012 [6] Sohn, C. (2019). Protection on Confidential Communications between Attorney and Client - Acknowledgment of Attorney - Client Privilege and Interpretation of Relevant Statutes. Journal of Legal Studies [7] Seoul Southern District Court Decision No. 2023Bo4 dated 23 February 2024