By Lee Dong-wook
As an ethnic Korean, but U.S.-trained lawyer admitted to the New York bar, I enjoy reading about the recent developments and debates about legal reforms in Korea. Among the recent changes in the Korean judicial sector, the most revolutionary one is the passing of the bill for U.S.-style law schools on July 3, 2007 and its aftermath.
Let us look into the details of this Act first. By this newly legislated Act, U.S.-style law schools will be opened to welcome new students in March 2009. Any colleges that would like to be accredited must hire at least 20 full-time professors, and at least 20 percent of the law school faculty must be composed of those who have a minimum of five years' practical experience. Plus, the student-to-professor ratio cannot exceed 15:1. In addition, those schools must recruit new students through a Law Education Eligibility Test (LEET) modeled after the Law School Admission Test (LSAT) of the U.S.
This act, however, does not solve all the hidden problems. One of the biggest problems is the entanglement of vested interests put forth by lawyers and scholars,'' according to Professor Kim Kwang-rok of Bukyung University (``Korea Needs Real US-Style Law School,'' Korea Times Issue today, Aug. 7).
According to Kim's description, the Korea Bar Association calls for a quota of 1,200 new students each year for the law schools. This figure is slightly above the current ceiling of 1,000, the number of new lawyers admitted each year under the present judiciary exam.
But many law professors are reportedly calling for a quota of about 3,000 students each year. Professor Kim is no exception. He also said in his article that the new system should not be used to help maintain the vested interests of the lawyers' community and grant new privileges to a limited number of universities.
To support his arguments, he used the example of the United States, more specifically New York, and said that the U.S. does not set a limit on how many lawyers enter the field every year.
I agree with his main opinion that the number of lawyers should be increased dramatically so that more people will be able to have access to legal services. But I have no choice but to show strong concern about his approach taken to make his arguments sound more reasonable and plausible.
Through reading his article, most readers might have been mislead. By saying the new system should not be used to help maintain ``the vested interests of the lawyers community'' and grant new privileges to a limited number of universities, Kim clandestinely concealed his ambition to maintain ``the vested interest of the scholars' and law professors' community.''
In order to strengthen his arguments, he revealed, perhaps in thinly concealed glee, only a one-sided partial truth about the U.S. legal education system and partially twisted facts in his favor.
First, he did not say that legal education in the United States is dominated by lawyers. For example, 90 percent of Harvard Law School and Yale Law School professors have lawyers on their faculties. On the other hand, most Korean law school professors are not lawyers themselves. Only about 20-30 percent of law school faculties in Seoul National University, Korea University, and Yonsei University are lawyers.
Second, he misstated in the diagram of his article that law school graduates will be awarded specialized bachelor's degree in law. Although it is understandable that he may want to have his opinion sound plausible by using graphics, his argument was too far-fetched in saying that the law school graduates would be awarded specialized bachelor's degrees. I do personally believe he, having obtained his legal degree in the U.S., intentionally coined such terms like specialized bachelor's degree. He was very wrong on this matter: they will be awarded the Korean version of a juris doctor (JD) degree.
Most Korean law schools and their faculty members do not, or reluctantly, at least at the moment, recognize JD degree holders for faculty positions. Ironically JD is the most common degree for U.S. lawyers and law school professors. I found that about 80 percent of Harvard law school and Yale law school professors are JD degree holders.
Even among professors on law school faculties, less than 5 percent hold the JSD (Doctor of Juridical Science) degree. The JSD degree instead is unreasonably and erroneously highly regarded in Korea I found out only after returning to Korea. The single biggest difference between a JD degree and a JSD degree in the U.S. is that the latter requires writing a lengthy dissertation paper while the former not always. JD degree holders, in the U.S. at least, are not discriminated against in the legal circle. There are many cases where JD degree holders are admitted to post-doctoral programs in the US.
What is more ironic is that almost all Korean JSD degree holders got their degree under the teachings of JD degree holders in the U.S. But once they (JSD degree holders) return to Korea, they suddenly become enthusiastic about hypocritically disparaging JD degrees and JD degree holders.
The behavior of such Korean JSD degree holders is somewhat comparable _ to borrow an old Korean saying _ to spitting on their own faces and on their JD mentors. Professor Kim, a JSD degree holder himself, made similar mistakes in that sense, although not outspokenly, but in a very tactically subtle way.
Lee is a member of the New York bar and currently working for the Ministry of Justice. He can be reached at 88lawyer@hanmail.net