By Choi Sung-jin
The ongoing "Oxy scandal" has highlighted the dilemma the nation's large law firms have found themselves in.
A case in point is Kim & Chang, arguably Korea's largest legal service provider, which has come under public criticism for representing Oxy Reckitt Benckiser (RB) Korea, the British company's local offshoot related to the humidifier disinfectant that allegedly caused the deaths of more than 100 people.
As people's interest grows in the law firms handling the cases that have become social concerns, large providers of legal services are agonizing between "public opinion" and "clients."
According to legal circles, RB Korea reportedly asked not Kim & Chang but a different law firm to defend its case. But the law firm decided to reject the proposal after a free-for-all among its partners. "It is true the company proposed us to accept the case," said a staff member at the law firm. "We decided not to take the case for fear of social repercussions, although we did not say so."
Some partners resisted the decision, saying, "Even a serial killer has the right to counsel," and "Will foreign companies continue to invest in Korea if few law firms are willing to defend them in legal disputes?"
The Korea Bar Association's bill of ethics stipulates that "a lawyer should not refuse to accept a case only because his or her client or the content of the case is subject to criticism from society in general." The bill of ethics is a rule that has binding power enough to authorize the association to discipline violators.
The Oxy scandal is not the first case that has thrown law firms into "case risk."
When the law firm Shin & Kim rejected the proposal to defend the Seoul branch of the Yomiuri Shimbun for fear of adverse public sentiment years ago, BKL accepted the case. The Japanese newspaper was taken to court after it reported that former President Lee Myung-bak, when Tokyo demanded Seoul endorse the description of the Dokdo islets in the Japanese name of Takeshima, said: "This is not the right time. Wait a little longer, please."
In the 5 trillion-won investor-state dispute (ISD) case involving the Lone Star Fund, BKL represented the Korean government while Kim & Chang worked for the Texas-based private equity fund. In another ISD case between two foreign oil companies and the Korean government, on the other hand, Kim & Chang is representing the Seoul government.
When few large law firms came forward to defend Yoo Byeong-eon, the owner of Cheonghaejin Marine, the operator of the ill-fated Sewol ferry, a midsize law firm took the case by default. "Large legal firms cannot help but listen to and follow popular sentiment," a lawyer said.
These legal service providers, however, are concerned about losing major clients if they continue to turn down cases attracting public interest. "It will be difficult for large enterprises to trust law firms that choose their cases according to public opinions, won't it?" another lawyer said. The "absolute support" Kim & Chang is enjoying among corporate clients, here or abroad, is owed to its strong work ethic, he said.
"Foreign law firms stop at nothing to defend their clients' interests," said a lawyer belonging to a large company's legal team. "Kim & Chang is one of the Korean law firms most similar to their foreign counterparts."
A large law firm's partner agreed. "The intrinsic role of law firms is defense argument, which can be damaged by selective acceptance of cases, however," he said. "Except for the indefensible cases of illegal defense, the public should not criticize law firms for just taking up certain cases."
The ongoing "Oxy scandal" has highlighted the dilemma the nation's large law firms have found themselves in.
A case in point is Kim & Chang, arguably Korea's largest legal service provider, which has come under public criticism for representing Oxy Reckitt Benckiser (RB) Korea, the British company's local offshoot related to the humidifier disinfectant that allegedly caused the deaths of more than 100 people.
As people's interest grows in the law firms handling the cases that have become social concerns, large providers of legal services are agonizing between "public opinion" and "clients."
According to legal circles, RB Korea reportedly asked not Kim & Chang but a different law firm to defend its case. But the law firm decided to reject the proposal after a free-for-all among its partners. "It is true the company proposed us to accept the case," said a staff member at the law firm. "We decided not to take the case for fear of social repercussions, although we did not say so."
Some partners resisted the decision, saying, "Even a serial killer has the right to counsel," and "Will foreign companies continue to invest in Korea if few law firms are willing to defend them in legal disputes?"
The Korea Bar Association's bill of ethics stipulates that "a lawyer should not refuse to accept a case only because his or her client or the content of the case is subject to criticism from society in general." The bill of ethics is a rule that has binding power enough to authorize the association to discipline violators.
The Oxy scandal is not the first case that has thrown law firms into "case risk."
When the law firm Shin & Kim rejected the proposal to defend the Seoul branch of the Yomiuri Shimbun for fear of adverse public sentiment years ago, BKL accepted the case. The Japanese newspaper was taken to court after it reported that former President Lee Myung-bak, when Tokyo demanded Seoul endorse the description of the Dokdo islets in the Japanese name of Takeshima, said: "This is not the right time. Wait a little longer, please."
In the 5 trillion-won investor-state dispute (ISD) case involving the Lone Star Fund, BKL represented the Korean government while Kim & Chang worked for the Texas-based private equity fund. In another ISD case between two foreign oil companies and the Korean government, on the other hand, Kim & Chang is representing the Seoul government.
When few large law firms came forward to defend Yoo Byeong-eon, the owner of Cheonghaejin Marine, the operator of the ill-fated Sewol ferry, a midsize law firm took the case by default. "Large legal firms cannot help but listen to and follow popular sentiment," a lawyer said.
These legal service providers, however, are concerned about losing major clients if they continue to turn down cases attracting public interest. "It will be difficult for large enterprises to trust law firms that choose their cases according to public opinions, won't it?" another lawyer said. The "absolute support" Kim & Chang is enjoying among corporate clients, here or abroad, is owed to its strong work ethic, he said.
"Foreign law firms stop at nothing to defend their clients' interests," said a lawyer belonging to a large company's legal team. "Kim & Chang is one of the Korean law firms most similar to their foreign counterparts."
A large law firm's partner agreed. "The intrinsic role of law firms is defense argument, which can be damaged by selective acceptance of cases, however," he said. "Except for the indefensible cases of illegal defense, the public should not criticize law firms for just taking up certain cases."