0
Lee Ki-chul, the bereaved mother of a school violence victim who lost her lawsuit due to attorney Kwon Kyung-ae’s repeated failure to appear in court, sheds tears while speaking to reporters at the Korean Bar Association building in Seocho-gu, Seoul, where a disciplinary committee meeting for Kwon was held on the afternoon of June 19, 2023. / Photo via Yonhap News

Amid a Supreme Court ruling holding attorney Kwon Kyung-ae liable for damages after her failure to appear in court led to a loss in a school violence lawsuit, calls are growing to strengthen the accountability and disciplinary framework for lawyers who violate their duty of diligence. In connection with the incident, Kwon received a mere one-year suspension, and it was revealed that 58 percent of attorneys disciplined for violating their duty of diligence received relatively lenient penalties such as fines.

The Supreme Court’s First Division (with Supreme Court Justice Seo Kyung-hwan as the poncho justice) finalized a ruling on the 29th of last month in a damage lawsuit filed by Lee Ki-chul, the mother of the late Park Ju-won, against Kwon and others, ordering Kwon and her law firm to pay 65 million won in alimony to Lee. Representing Lee, Kwon filed a civil lawsuit in 2016 against the perpetrators, the school foundation, and the Seoul Metropolitan Government, but lost the case after failing to appear in appellate court hearings three consecutive times. This is because Article 268 of the Civil Procedure Act stipulates that if a party fails to appear or plead at a pleading date three or more times, the lawsuit is deemed withdrawn. Subsequently, Kwon failed to inform the bereaved family of the loss for about five months, and the judgment became final as the family was unable to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Similar to Kwon’s case, instances of lawyers being disciplined for violating their duty of diligence, such as neglecting cases or failing to appear in court, continue to occur steadily. According to the individual disciplinary information logs on the Korean Bar Association (KBA) website, out of 30 disciplinary actions published based on their effective dates since January this year, 12 cases were categorized under 'violation of the duty of diligence.' According to the 'KBA Attorney Disciplinary Committee Decision Status,' as of December 31 last year, 99 out of 858 disciplinary actions taken over a six-year period since 2020 fell under violations of the duty of diligence. This ranks as the third highest figure, following violations of lawyer advertising regulations (306 cases) and violations of the duty to maintain dignity (225 cases).

However, sanctions against lawyers disciplined for violating their duty of diligence mostly remained relatively minor. According to the KBA Disciplinary Committee's status, among the 99 cases of disciplinary action, fines were the most frequent at 58 cases, followed by suspensions (19 cases), reprimands (13 cases), and disbarments (9 cases).

An attorney's duty of diligence is a fundamental obligation prescribed in the Attorney At Law Act and the Code of Lawyer Ethics. Attorneys must faithfully perform their duties in accordance with their mission and strive to achieve the client's entrusted objectives as swiftly as possible in handling matters.

Regarding the issue, criticisms are being raised that disciplinary standards and severity must be heightened, given that strict legal deadlines and procedures apply to litigation, meaning an attorney's carelessness or negligence can directly damage the protection of a client's rights and interests. Article 92 of the current Attorney At Law Act mandates the KBA Disciplinary Committee to deliberate and resolve on attorney discipline.

"While the presence of negligence is crucial in discipline, if negligence is found, there is a tendency to look back at conventional precedents and hand down a similar level of discipline," explained Professor Kim Hee-kyun of the University of Seoul Law School. "Ultimately, this means that in the case of non-appearance in court, fines have historically been imposed in most instances." He added, "In the past, because the number of lawyers was small, there were many cases of handing down fines in a so-called 'look-the-other-way' manner, but failing to appear in court is absolutely not a matter that should end with a fine. Disciplinary committee members need to perceive and discipline the matter much more sternly from an objective, third-party perspective."

                                                                                                         Son Seung-hyun