[비즈한국] As the Democratic Party of Korea repeatedly calls for "judicial reform," the legal community is keeping a close eye on the policy to expand the disclosure of court judgments. Because courts have historically withheld most judgments—except for specific cases—there is much speculation about "who should have access and to what extent."
The Korean Bar Association (KBA) maintains that access should initially be limited to lawyers to prevent potential issues like personal data leaks. Conversely, startup companies are hoping for full public disclosure. They argue that once judgments are made public, there are endless possibilities for utilizing them as data in the legal tech sector.
KBA: "Give Lawyers Priority Access First"
After launching its internal Special Committee on People-Centered Judicial Reform, the Democratic Party has been gathering opinions from both inside and outside the party to discuss legislation. At the end of last month, it announced plans to pursue: △increasing the number of Supreme Court Justices, △expanding the diversity of the Supreme Court Justice Recommendation Committee, △improving the judge evaluation system, and △introducing a pre-trial review system for search and seizure warrants. Along with these, it proposed the "expansion of lower court judgment disclosure." This is the area the legal profession is watching most closely.
Until now, courts have not disclosed lower court judgments to the general public, with the exception of Supreme Court precedents. Only cases with significance as new precedents or those receiving significant media attention were partially disclosed, primarily to prevent the leakage of personal information.
Consequently, judgments—as one of the most important legal resources—have acquired value in and of themselves. Legal tech companies like LBox have established a stable market presence with a business model that collects, anonymizes, and provides lower court judgments—which are not provided by the courts—to large law firms. Judgments have become "profitable information," with most lawyers, not to mention large law firms, paying tens of thousands of won every month to subscribe to judgment search services.
A managing partner at a large law firm explained, "When taking on a new case, it is common to search for judgments from similar cases to observe precedent trends and outcomes, which then informs consultations and the drafting of complaints or legal briefs. If we can access more judgments, the quality of legal services can improve accordingly."
This is the context behind the KBA demanding "priority access" for lawyers as the Democratic Party pushes for broader judgment disclosure. The KBA argues that lawyers should be given priority access to prepare for various potential risks.
A KBA official expressed concern, stating, "Public access to judgments may happen eventually, but even with anonymization, personal information leaks are inevitable. If judgments are fully released to the general public rather than just legal professionals, and 'commercialization' follows market trends, the legal market might eventually succumb to the logic of capital."
Legal Tech Companies: "Judgment Disclosure is a Game Changer"
On the other hand, legal tech companies view "judgment disclosure" as a game changer that could alter the landscape of the legal AI market. This is why they hope for disclosure to everyone, rather than limiting it to "legal professionals."
By securing a certain volume of judgments and accumulating them as data, companies can launch limitless AI-based businesses. Simple complaints or legal opinions could be drafted via AI without the need for a lawyer. While the KBA currently strictly prohibits this, business models could be expanded to include predicting trial outcomes based on judgments, providing simple referrals for new cases, and connecting clients with lawyers.
A managing partner at a small law firm currently pushing for AI-integrated business services predicted, "Thinking about what strategies to formulate using judgments is a basic issue within the lawyer's realm. However, the legal market will be shaken up depending on which AI models are introduced based on public judgments and what services are provided to legal professionals or future clients. The extent of lower court disclosure—and whether that access is limited to legal professionals, the media, or the general public—will be a game changer that shifts the entire flow of the future legal market."