Per the earlier entry relating to ongoing Samsung influence peddling and bribery scandal, now the Korean Bar Association is thinking to chastise the whistle-blower, Kim Yong-chul, for developing a better sense of ethics than they apparently have. Will Shakesphere ever not be contemporary?
-
English Books on Korea... and More!
-
Visit My Brother's Film Review Site
13 Comments
Why the threat to disbar him based on his breach of lawyer-client confidentiality? Correct me if I’m wrong, but since he admits having done something illegal shouldn’t he be disbarred anyways?
Because that would be an implicit way of confirming that what Samsung did was illegal.
As I understand it, he was setting up slush funds and bribing people, which is a crime, and commiting crimes gets you disbarred.
#3.
The party that allegedly set up the slush funds is Samsung. Kim just doled out the goodies.
Yes, you’re correct, a lawyer should be disbarred if he/she is found guilty of a crime. But the KBA is considering disbarring him for breaking client-lawyer confidentiality clauses, not because of the act of bribery.
#4,
Yes, but, as you were saying in #2, that would be an implicit admission that Samsung bribed members of the KBA.
…which they can’t do unless he’s been convicted of that crime.
Then again, if they find that broke client-lawyer confidentiality, then isn’t that in itself an admission that bribery did take place? If it wasn’t true, then wouldn’t they be talking about disbarring him for libel instead?
#7.
Not exactly. Just because they disbar him for breaking confidentiality doesn’t necessarily mean that they are admitting that bribery took place.
And you’re right, they could have disbarred him for libel, but on the other hand, he has to be found guilty of libel, no?
I mean if they do disbar him, they are doing it because he spilled out his guts, they are not implying or saying that the information he spilled out is true or not.
Either way, the KBA seems to be a fine sack of weasels.
#9,
It’s all quite absurd, that’s for sure.
The Korean Bar Association is examining whether to sanction Kim — they haven’t come to a decision yet.
First of all, there is the question of whether the lawyer’s duty of confidentiality to the client applies to instances where a corporate counsel is involved (i.e., is the corporation a “client” of the attorney or merely his employer?). And there’s the larger questions of whether his role in the company is as an attorney or merely a legally-trained individual. Korea’s experience with in-house counsel is not long and there may not be appropriate precedents to rely upon.
Whether attorney-client privilege exists between an in-house lawyer and the corporation is easier — there is no attorney-client privilege recognized under Korean law.
The Attorneys’ Act and code of ethics are sorely outdated in that they do not anticipate an attorney’s role in any activity other than acting as an advocate in civil or criminal litigation. Whether or not acting as an adviser is in fact “the practice of law” as it is in some other jurisdictions ought to be spelled out more concretely in the future.
There is actually a good reason for the KBA to wait: If Kim has made the whole thing up (which I do not personally believe), he would therefore not have divulged a client’s secret. There may be some other reason to sanction him, but if the core allegation is false he did not violate the attorney’s duty of confidentiality.
If Kim’s allegations are true, then on the face of the Attorneys’ Act the lawyer should be sanctioned as there does not appear to be an exception for whistleblowing as you might find in some American jurisdictions. Placing your hard-earned license on the line is a brave thing to do, as an act of principled disobedience, but the consequences must be upheld too if the rules are to have any effect.
Remember, too, that criminal defamation prosecution undoubtedly awaits. And probably a blanket party.
#12,
Thanks for making thinks clear…
But, wasn’t he an ‘in-house lawyer’?