In 2024, AI began knocking on the legal market's door. The Korean Bar Association (KBA) warned of potential violations of the Attorneys-at-Law Act by domestic law firms offering AI-based legal consultation services, previewing disciplinary procedures. Their position: "Legal consultation can only be provided by registered attorneys — if AI intervention replaces the substance of consultation, it constitutes clear illegality."
Legal AI progress: global law firms already actively use AI for document automation, case law search, and legal research. Domestically, the court administration's "Next-Generation Electronic Litigation System" and AI judgment recommendation model aim to assist judges with case preparation and improve consistency. The 2024 AI Voucher Support Project also saw multiple law firms participating to apply generative AI to legal document analysis, case law summarization, and chatbot-based consultation.
Key concerns: if all attorneys use AI-based research, could "AI vs. AI trials" emerge? Would the quality of competing AI algorithms determine verdicts rather than individual attorney capabilities? Required standards: (1) Specific guidelines on where AI can and cannot function; (2) Hybrid collaboration model combining AI with attorney expertise — AI as support tool, final judgment by professionals; (3) Legal ethics education and AI literacy reinforcement; (4) Transparent public communication and social consensus before judicial AI implementation. "The question is not simply technological adoption but 'what is legal consultation,' 'how is expertise verified,' and 'who can citizens trust to interpret law' — technology is merely a tool; what matters is the people, institutions, and social consensus surrounding trust."
