[앵커]
Despite the Constitutional Court’s decision that some of the internal regulations that ban the use of online legal platforms such as ‘Rotok’ by the Korean Bar Association are unconstitutional, the controversy continues as the lawyers are forced to apply for disciplinary action.
It is because I interpreted the purpose of the Constitutional Court’s decision to my liking, but it seems that the battle with the platform company will eventually be resolved until an individual lawsuit is filed.
Correspondent Na Hye-in.
[기자]
On the 26th of last month, the Constitutional Court ruled that some provisions of the regulations of the Korean Bar Association, which prohibited lawyers from using the legal platform, were unconstitutional.
Lawyers’ prohibition of paying advertisers for promotions or referrals was the reason that they were too infringing on freedom of expression and profession.
We judged that the provision that allowed the Bar Association to determine the content of advertisements that might be prohibited by authoritative interpretation was also too arbitrary.
The industry leader ‘Rotok’, who filed a constitutional complaint, welcomed the disappearance of the grounds for disciplinary action by the Bar Association.
However, four days later, the Bar Association filed a disciplinary action once morest 28 lawyers who joined ‘Rotok’ once more.
Until the public briefing, the Bar Association argued that the provisions determined to be unconstitutional were only a fraction of the total 12 judges, and rather, the Constitutional Court recognized the legitimacy of the provisions on the basis of core disciplinary action.
[이종엽 / 대한변호사협회장 : 헌재는 변호사 광고에 관한 규정이 변호사의 공공성과 공정한 수임질서의 유지, 법률 사무에 대한 소비자 보호 등 공익적 목적을 달성하는 것이라는 점을 분명히 해서….]
The Bar Association used the remaining provisions recognized as constitutional as the basis for disciplinary action, and Article 5, Paragraph 2, which was ruled unconstitutional, was also partially applied.
Although it is unconstitutional to prohibit itself, the Constitutional Court decided that it is right to ban the act of connecting lawyers and consumers for a fee, arguing that the essence of ‘LoTalk’ is a ‘connecting act’.
[이춘수 / 대한변호사협회 법제이사 : 매니저라는 분이 류○○ 변호사 추천해 드린다고 하면서…. 이게 오프라인에서 브로커가 변호사 추천하는 것과 뭐가 다르죠?]
The ‘Rotok’ side is strongly protesting.
A legal platform merely provides a forum for lawyers and clients to connect, and is different from brokers’ direct mediation.
He accused the Bar Association of arbitrarily interpreting the Constitutional Court decision, saying that he would have been punished for violating the Attorney Act if he had done so illegally, but he was acquitted several times by investigative agencies during that time.
The Bar Association said that it would not look at capital servitude in the legal market, and plans to speed up the decision process for lawyer disciplinary action, which has been delayed.
However, the RoTalk side sees the Bar Association’s hard response as ‘protecting the rice bowl’ and enforces disciplinary action once morest the law.
The confrontation between the two sides, which has not been resolved even by the judgment of the constitutional institution, is expected to continue until a case is established through individual litigation.
This is Na Hye-in from YTN.
YTN Na Hye-in ([email protected])
※ ‘Your report becomes news’
[카카오톡] Search YTN to add a channel
[전화] 02-398-8585
[메일] [email protected]
[저작권자(c) YTN 무단전재 및 재배포 금지]
