Legal professionals emphasize that “judge shopping” doesn’t guarantee favorable outcomes. (image: Korea Bizwire)
SEOUL, Sept. 29 (Korea Bizwire) – A legal provision designed to ensure fair trials has become the center of a contentious debate in South Korea. The rule, which allows for the reassignment of judges in certain circumstances, is increasingly being scrutinized for potential abuse.
Critics argue that it’s being exploited as a strategy to change presiding judges or delay proceedings, particularly in high-profile cases.
The controversy, often referred to as “judge shopping,” typically arises when a party to a case hires an attorney with connections to the assigned judge, such as a former colleague or a relative.
According to court regulations, if a judge determines that a lawyer’s personal ties to the bench raise fairness concerns, they can request a case reassignment. The decision to reassign is then made by the court’s chief judge or a senior presiding judge.
This issue came to the forefront in the high-stakes divorce case of SK Group chairman Chey Tae-won and Art Center Nabi director Roh Soh-yeong. In January of last year, Roh added Kim Ki-jung, then the head attorney at the law firm Class, to her legal team.
The presiding judge at the time, Cho Young-chul, had a brother-in-law who was an attorney at the same firm. Cho requested a reassignment, and the case was moved to a different family court division.
The controversy reignited in January when Chey’s side hired two attorneys from Kim & Chang just two days before the first hearing. This move raised eyebrows because the new presiding judge, Kim Si-chul, had a nephew working at Kim & Chang.
Despite the ensuing public debate, the Seoul High Court did not reassign the case, citing the advanced stage of proceedings and ethical guidelines that allow judges to hear cases involving distant relatives under certain conditions.
In May, the reassigned court ordered Chey to pay Roh 1.38 trillion won in their divorce settlement, a significant increase from the 66.5 billion won awarded in the initial ruling.
Legal experts warn that the current system could be manipulated to avoid unfavorable judges. “If a party anticipates an unfavorable outcome from Judge A but a favorable one from Judge B, they might preemptively hire a lawyer with connections to Judge A, increasing the likelihood of reassignment,” explained Kim Je-wan, a law professor at Korea University.
Legal professionals emphasize that “judge shopping” doesn’t guarantee favorable outcomes. They attribute the persistent controversy to declining trust in judicial impartiality and a societal preference for lawyers with insider connections.
To address these concerns, some experts suggest restricting attorneys with clear conflicts of interest from representing clients in certain cases. “We should consider legislation, similar to advanced countries like the U.S., that limits representation by lawyers with obvious connections and requires the appointment of different counsel,” Kim proposed.
M. H. Lee (mhlee@koreabizwire.com)
