Attorney Search Service Statement Ministry of Justice’s 「Attorney Search Service Operation Guidelines」 - Agreement with Basic Purpose, but Revisions and Amendments Are Necessary - On May 27, 2025, the Ministry of Justice announced the “Attorney Search Service Operation Guidelines” (hereinafter referred to as the “Guidelines”). The Guidelines were established to serve the purposes of preserving the public nature of the attorney system, ensuring fair legal representation practices, protecting legal consumers, and improving public access to justice (Article 1). The Guidelines are meaningful as basic recommendations within the scope not violating the Attorney Act and other relevant laws, based on the fundamental principle that they must not undermine the purpose of the Attorney Act (Article 4(1)) and the fact that they are not legally binding (Article 3). The Guidelines prohibit attorney search service operators from engaging in acts such as indicating or advertising the handling of legal affairs, recommending specific attorneys, implying a partnership with member attorneys, and imposing excessive advertising fees (Article 4(2), (3)). In particular, Chapter 2 of the Guidelines, which sets out detailed operational standards, places explicit restrictions on the operational practices of so-called “legal platforms” that have previously caused harm to legal consumers. In this respect, the Guidelines are evaluated positively as a first step. Furthermore, the Guidelines explicitly identify unlawful practices currently adopted by legal platforms. These include: ranking attorneys higher in search results based on the amount of advertising fees paid (Article 7(4)); indicating legal service fees for delegated matters (Article 9(3)); and quantifying or arbitrarily aggregating user evaluations (Article 17). These provisions aim to address long-standing problems in the legal services market, such as the distortion of attorney selection caused by financial influence. The Guidelines are significant in that they explicitly confirm the prohibition of such existing practices of legal platforms (see Appendix 1). The Korean Bar Association agrees with the basic objectives of the Guidelines. However, from the perspective of legal consistency with the Attorney Act and related statutes, the Association clearly states that the following revisions and amendments are necessary. First, permitting the display of search results based on platform-accumulated indicators (Article 12(2)) may result in monopolization of case opportunities by attorneys who spend more on advertising or who have numerous client reviews, thereby raising concerns that the public’s fair choice of attorneys could be restricted. Second, the provision allowing only attorneys who are members of the platform or have paid service fees to appear in search results—or to be prioritized in the listing order (Article 7(2))—may constitute a form of “intermediation or referral,” which is prohibited under the Regulations on Attorney Advertising. This practice also conflicts with other provisions of the Guidelines, such as the prohibition on recommending specific attorneys or creating the impression of a partnership or interest between the platform operator and attorneys (Article 4(2)). Third, acts by non-attorneys that connect attorneys and legal consumers are not permitted under the Attorney Act. Certain legal platforms have taken advantage of regulatory loopholes to pursue corporate profits through inappropriate business practices, including providing discount coupons for legal consultations, intervening in attorney consultation fees, and displaying platform logos and trademarks in attorney advertisements to subordinate attorneys. These practices constitute unlawful or evasive services that infringe upon the public’s right to select attorneys based on objective and fair information. Accordingly, the Korean Bar Association reiterates that the Guidelines must be revised and supplemented to ensure alignment with the Attorney Act and other relevant laws. It is especially emphasized that the Guidelines are merely advisory in nature, and that the final authority over regulations on attorney advertising lies with the Korean Bar Association under the Attorney Act. As the statutory organization delegated with the authority to amend attorney advertising regulations under the Attorney Act, the Korean Bar Association will continue its efforts to preemptively prevent harm to the public and to establish a fair and orderly legal services market. [Appendix 1]Ministry of Justice “Attorney Search Service Operation Guidelines”May 27, 2025Korean Bar AssociationPresident Kim Jung-wook