공직퇴임변호사에 대한 점검방안의 문제점과 개선방안 - 공직퇴임변호사의 개념 등에 관한 논의를 겸하여 -

It is correct to construe Article 31 Paragraph 3 of Attorney-at-law to limit the concept of attorney-at-law retired from a public office to person who retain attorney license at the time of retirement, in order to honor the intention of legislators. And the ‘attorney’ for the purpose of Article 89-1 Paragraph 1 must be construed to be limited to attorneys who have filed reports of practices, mainly for two reasons. First, means to regulate activities of persons with disqualifiers as attorneys must be in place. Second, there is the need to regulate activities of attorneys before their filing of reports of practices. Also, the word ‘handled’ for the purpose of Article 31 Paragraph 3 of the Act must be construed to be limited to cases handled mainly by the state agency in which he/she has worked. If the state agency prohibits attorneys-at-law retired from public offices from accepting cases, the attorney may also be responsible for non-maintenance of dignity. In order to effectively supervise activities of attorneys-at-law retired from public offices, it is advisable that a state agency be obligated to report names of retired attorneys to the Legal Ethics and Professional Conduct Council. and attorney fees and telephone number of clients be included in case documents, in order to explicitly show how the attorney took the case. Also, employees from the Legal Ethics and Professional Conduct Council must be provided access to detained clients and law offices of those attorneys representing them. Also, by mandating attorneys-at-law retired from public offices to submit case list, the balance will be struck between the need to protect attorney-client confidential relationship and the need to fight against judicial corruption.