[Contribution] Will Legal Tech be a sign of innovation in legal services?

Supreme Court, first ruling, “Legal Tech’s legal document preparation does not conflict with the current law”
This ruling is not only a victory for the plaintiff company, but also heralds a counter-productive change in the legal market.
“The Korean Bar Association must also break away from regulations and begin discussions on how to utilize AI.”

A meaningful final ruling has been made that will change the landscape of the domestic legal technology industry. The Supreme Court recently confirmed a ruling in favor of the plaintiff in the appeal trial of a lawsuit filed by Park Seong-jae, head of Loform Legal AI Center, against the Seoul Bar Association requesting cancellation of disallowance for concurrent employment. This is the Supreme Court’s first ruling that the ‘automatic legal document creation service’ provided by Legal Tech does not violate the current law.

The issue in this ruling was whether the service in question constitutes ‘handling of legal affairs by non-lawyers’, which is strictly prohibited by the Attorney General’s Act. In response to this, the Supreme Court considered the system in which documents are automatically completed when users enter information as legal. The idea is that if the structure is such that only documents are created mechanically without the involvement of a lawyer's individual review or revision process, this cannot be considered legal work. Accordingly, it is expected that Legal Tech will quickly dominate the market for basic legal documents such as content certification, complaints, and payment orders.

This ruling goes beyond just one company's victory and suggests that the introduction of AI technology in the legal market is an inevitable trend of the times. The clock in the global market is already turning quickly through ‘generative AI’ beyond simple document automation. According to a survey by global consulting firm FTI, the proportion of corporate legal teams around the world adopting generative AI nearly doubled from 44% last year to 87% this year.

The paradigm of the legal market has already begun an irreversible change. AI will be responsible for standardized tasks such as drafting basic documents and searching for extensive precedents, while lawyers will focus on advanced legal interpretation, coordination of complex interests, and establishment of detailed trial strategies.

The dispute with the lawyer group over Legal Tech services continued for over 10 years. Expectations are high that the Korean Bar Association's regulations, which have been in conflict over the legal tech issue, will also gain some breathing room.

Daeryun Law Firm, where the author belongs, has paid attention to the potential of AI technology from an early age and has been gradually introducing related systems throughout its practice. By utilizing AI technology for simple repetitive tasks, the work structure has been improved so that affiliated lawyers can focus on essential legal service capabilities such as analysis of key issues in cases and risk management.

Rather than being a threat to lawyers' jobs, AI and legal tech are powerful tools that can improve the quality and accessibility of legal services. Now, the legal community should not stop at blocking technological development, but start discussing in earnest how to control and utilize AI. As the first milestone has been set by the Supreme Court's ruling, it is time to establish guidelines to establish legal tech in practice.

[View full article]
[Contribution] Will the release of Legal Tech be a signal for innovation in legal services? (Shortcut)