A bill to revise the Attorney‑at‑Law Act centered on introducing the "Attorney-Client Privilege (ACP)" passed the National Assembly's plenary session on the 29th. The Korean Bar Association said, "Codifying attorney-client confidentiality in law has been a representative long-standing task for the legal community, and it establishes an institutional foundation to guarantee the right to defense and strengthen the independence of attorneys' duties."
At the plenary session that day, the National Assembly approved the revision with 201 in favor, 9 against, and 24 abstentions, with 234 of 296 members present. The revision stipulates the privilege of confidentiality so that, in principle, conversations between attorneys and clients and materials exchanged need not be disclosed, except in cases such as when the client gives voluntary consent or when a co-offender is clear.
The current Attorney‑at‑Law Act only imposes a duty on attorneys to refrain from divulging professional secrets and does not specify a right to refuse disclosure at the request of investigative authorities. As a result, communications between attorneys and clients can be exposed during compulsory investigations such as searches and seizures, and the right to assistance of counsel can be chilled, observers have noted. With repeated controversies over searches and seizures of law firms and corporations' in-house legal teams and the seizure of messenger chats between attorneys and clients, the legal community has become more aware of the need to introduce the system.
The association said that with this revision, Article 26-2 (Privilege of Confidentiality, etc.) of the Attorney‑at‑Law Act was newly established, providing grounds to refuse disclosure of confidential communications made for the purpose of legal assistance, and to refuse disclosure of documents and materials (including electronic data) prepared and kept for litigation, investigation, or inquiries in connection with retained cases. The association noted that it had long pointed out a legislative gap in which only a "duty" of confidentiality was imposed on attorneys without a "right" to protect it from compulsory investigations, and said this legislation is a constitutional safeguard to secure both the public's right to confidentiality and procedural fairness.
The association urged the government and judicial authorities to make thorough follow-up measures, including revising subordinate regulations to reflect the purpose of the bill and improving investigative practices. It called on investigative authorities to recognize that the privilege of confidentiality is central to guaranteeing the right to defense and to establish investigative practices that respect attorney-client communications. The association also said it will focus its capabilities on strengthening professional ethics to prevent abuse of the system, public outreach, and improving legal counseling systems.