{"title":"韩国法律服务市场自由化的实验:经验教训和改革选择","authors":"Tae-jung Park, Y. Ko","doi":"10.1080/10192557.2022.2033080","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Korea amended the Foreign Legal Consultant Act in 2016 to fulfil its free trade agreement commitments to Phase 3 legal services market liberalization. This Phase 3 liberalization allowed foreign law firms to form Joint Venture Law Firms with Korean law firms and practice in certain areas of local laws by employing Korean-licensed lawyers. However, free trade agreement contracting parties heavily criticized the terms and conditions of Joint Venture Law Firms and argued that these would discourage foreign law firms from entering joint ventures, thus significantly undermining the effect of Phase 3 liberalization. Indeed, the Joint Venture Law Firm provisions have not been used, even after five years since Phase 3 liberalization. With this backdrop, this article examines: (1) Korea’s history and past struggles to implement the Foreign Legal Consultant Act; (2) Criticisms of the Act and their legal validity; and (3) The costs and benefits of policy options for Korea’s future legal services market liberalization. This analysis provides a foundation for discussing future regulatory reforms of the Foreign Legal Consultant Act.","PeriodicalId":42799,"journal":{"name":"Asia Pacific Law Review","volume":"4 5","pages":"221 - 242"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Korea’s experimentation in legal services market liberalization: lessons learned and options for reform\",\"authors\":\"Tae-jung Park, Y. Ko\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10192557.2022.2033080\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Korea amended the Foreign Legal Consultant Act in 2016 to fulfil its free trade agreement commitments to Phase 3 legal services market liberalization. This Phase 3 liberalization allowed foreign law firms to form Joint Venture Law Firms with Korean law firms and practice in certain areas of local laws by employing Korean-licensed lawyers. However, free trade agreement contracting parties heavily criticized the terms and conditions of Joint Venture Law Firms and argued that these would discourage foreign law firms from entering joint ventures, thus significantly undermining the effect of Phase 3 liberalization. Indeed, the Joint Venture Law Firm provisions have not been used, even after five years since Phase 3 liberalization. With this backdrop, this article examines: (1) Korea’s history and past struggles to implement the Foreign Legal Consultant Act; (2) Criticisms of the Act and their legal validity; and (3) The costs and benefits of policy options for Korea’s future legal services market liberalization. This analysis provides a foundation for discussing future regulatory reforms of the Foreign Legal Consultant Act.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42799,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Asia Pacific Law Review\",\"volume\":\"4 5\",\"pages\":\"221 - 242\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Asia Pacific Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10192557.2022.2033080\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asia Pacific Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10192557.2022.2033080","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
Korea’s experimentation in legal services market liberalization: lessons learned and options for reform
ABSTRACT Korea amended the Foreign Legal Consultant Act in 2016 to fulfil its free trade agreement commitments to Phase 3 legal services market liberalization. This Phase 3 liberalization allowed foreign law firms to form Joint Venture Law Firms with Korean law firms and practice in certain areas of local laws by employing Korean-licensed lawyers. However, free trade agreement contracting parties heavily criticized the terms and conditions of Joint Venture Law Firms and argued that these would discourage foreign law firms from entering joint ventures, thus significantly undermining the effect of Phase 3 liberalization. Indeed, the Joint Venture Law Firm provisions have not been used, even after five years since Phase 3 liberalization. With this backdrop, this article examines: (1) Korea’s history and past struggles to implement the Foreign Legal Consultant Act; (2) Criticisms of the Act and their legal validity; and (3) The costs and benefits of policy options for Korea’s future legal services market liberalization. This analysis provides a foundation for discussing future regulatory reforms of the Foreign Legal Consultant Act.