On October 22, the Supreme Court of South Korea confirmed a lower court ruling that upheld a 15-million-won fine against Law Firm A and attorney B, issued by the Korean Bar Association for running deceptive promotional phrases like “satisfaction at the absolute maximum.”
Korean Bar Association Fines Law Firm for Misleading Ads
- Law Firm A and attorney B received 15-million-won fines each from the Korean Bar Association in 2023 and 2024 for advertising violations.
- Lower courts and the Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ appeals, ruling that terms like “highest,” “unique,” and “specialist” create misleading consumer expectations.
- Data from the Ministry of Justice shows disciplinary actions against lawyers for advertising rule breaches rose from 35 cases in 2023 to 66 in 2024, and 93 last year.
Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal by Law Firm A
As reported by newspim.com, South Korea’s Supreme Court dismissed an appeal filed by Law Firm A and attorney B against the Ministry of Justice’s lawyer disciplinary committee. The final ruling, issued on October 8 and finalized on October 16, maintained lower court decisions that found the firm’s advertising strategies violated professional regulations.
The Korean Bar Association originally disciplined Law Firm A in February 2023 and attorney B in April 2024, ordering both to pay 15 million won in fines. The promotional materials in question included phrases such as “satisfaction at the absolute maximum,” “attorney who resolved hundreds of criminal cases and led them to acquittals,” and “brand preference number one for six consecutive years.” The firm also utilized terms like “divorce specialist” and “criminal exclusive team.”
Regulatory Frameworks on Legal Advertising
Under Article 7, Paragraph 2 of the Korean Bar Association’s advertising regulations, practitioners are barred from publishing content that creates misunderstandings regarding objective facts. Specifically, lawyers cannot use terms such as “best” or “only” to describe their services. Titles like "specialist" or "exclusive" are restricted to practitioners formally registered under specific professional designation rules.
During the litigation, the 1st, 2nd, and Supreme Court instances aligned on the interpretation of these rules. The 1st instance trial court noted that restricting terms like “highest” and “unique” aims to prevent practitioners from exaggerating their abilities relative to peers, thereby shielding consumers from misleading or unjustified expectations.
| Entity / Case | Disputed Ad Phrasing | Disciplinary Penalty |
|---|---|---|
| Law Firm A & Attorney B | “Satisfaction at the absolute maximum,” “Brand preference #1 for 6 years” | 15,000,000 KRW fine per party |
| Law Firm C & Rep. Attorney D | “Stalking crimes… prosecutors will never indict,” “Most proficient” | 5,000,000 KRW fine per party |
| Attorney E | “Industrial accident field top expert” | Dismissed appeal against disciplinary committee |
Broader Judicial Crackdown on Legal Marketing
The decision coincides with a broader wave of strict judicial oversight targeting inflated marketing claims across the legal sector. On October 8, the Seoul Administrative Court rejected a similar suit brought by Law Firm C and representative attorney D against the Ministry of Justice disciplinary committee.
Law Firm C had promoted its services by claiming that a former judge handling stalking crimes would ensure prosecutors could not indict a client, alongside assertions that former judges are the most proficient interpreters of stalking statutes. The bar association subsequently levied 5-million-won fines on those involved, which the administrative court sustained.
An additional ruling on June 4 by the Seoul Administrative Court dismissed an appeal from attorney E, who contested a disciplinary decision triggered by the use of the phrase “top expert in the industrial accident field.” Ministry of Justice figures demonstrate an upward trajectory in these penalties, recording 35 disciplined lawyers in 2023, 66 in 2024, and 93 last year.
Disclaimer: The information provided in this article is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice.
