韩国法律服务市场自由化的实验:经验教训和改革选择

IF 1 4区 社会学 Q2 LAW Asia Pacific Law Review Pub Date : 2021-07-03 DOI:10.1080/10192557.2022.2033080
Tae-jung Park, Y. Ko
{"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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

韩国于2016年修改了《外国法律顾问法》,以履行自由贸易协定对法律服务市场开放第三阶段的承诺。第三阶段的开放允许外国律师事务所与韩国律师事务所成立合资律师事务所,并聘请韩国执业律师在当地法律的某些领域执业。然而,自由贸易协定缔约方严厉批评了合资律师事务所的条款和条件,认为这些条款和条件会阻碍外国律师事务所进入合资企业,从而大大削弱了第三阶段自由化的效果。事实上,即使在第三阶段开放五年之后,合资律师事务所的规定也没有被使用。在此背景下,本文考察了:(1)韩国实施《外国法律顾问法》的历史和过去的斗争;(2)对该法及其法律效力的批评;(3)韩国未来法律服务市场自由化政策选择的成本与收益。这一分析为讨论《外国法律顾问法》今后的管理改革提供了基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
54
期刊最新文献
Constitutional foundings in Northeast Asia Constitutional democracy in Indonesia Authoritarianism and legality Asia-Pacific trusts law Volume 1 theory and practice in context Varieties of authoritarian legality
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1