A Comparative Study of the Attorney Ethics Rules of Korea and the U.S. and the Application of Ethics Rules in Cross-Border Legal Representations
0
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
An ethical dilemma for a U.S. attorney who represents a U.S. company can arise when a trial court in Korea orders him to provide certain materials which he believes to be a violation of the ethical duty of the particular state where he is licensed to practice. Under the ethical duty of confidentiality rule, a U.S. attorney is prohibited from revealing information relating to the representation of a client. An attorney in the U.S. under the attorney-client privilege is also prohibited from disclosing confidential communication that takes place when a client seeks a legal advice from him. Since the duty of confidentiality covers information obtained by the attorney from any source besides from his client, its scope is broader than the attorney-client privilege in terms of providing a protection to the client. The Korean rules provide for the duty of confidentiality as well. However, a difference of the relevant rules between the U.S and Korea can be found in that the U.S. provision extends protection to any information relating to the client representation whereas the Korean provision seems to limit its protection to ‘secrets’ learned through the representation. Also, the Korean rules provide for a ‘public reason’ exception to the duty of confidentiality where the attorney can disclose the client’s secrets. This public reason exception is very wide in its scope and thus can be interpreted very liberally at the disadvantage of the client. The Korean laws do not specifically provide for the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine. The duty of confidentiality alone may not be sufficient for the full protection of client’s confidential information in that the disclosure of information in violation of such duty can still be used as evidence in trial and can incur actual damages to the client. Due to the significant levels of differences in ethical obligations between the two countries, an issue can arise whether a U.S.-licensed attorney, who is involved in cross-border legal disputes, should be subject to the ethics rules of the U.S. or Korea. This paper discusses the advantages and disadvantages of home-state approach, host-state approach, conflicts-of-law approach, international rules approach, and contract approach. This paper proposes that the parties and attorneys from both countries when entering into a contractual relationship specify the conflicts-of-law rules as delineated in ABA Model Rule 8.5(b) which can be used a rule for regulating and governing all the ethics matters arising from legal representations. This will provide a clear guideline and a sense of assurance to all the parties and lawyers that an ethical issue can be prevented or resolved according to their contractual intents and determinations.
Abstract
An ethical dilemma for a U.S. attorney who represents a U.S. company can arise when a trial court in Korea orders him to provide certain materials which he believes to be a violation of the ethical duty of the particular state where he is licensed to practice. Under the ethical duty of confidentiality rule, a U.S. attorney is prohibited from revealing information relating to the representation of a client. An attorney in the U.S. under the attorney-client privilege is also prohibited from disclosing confidential communication that takes place when a client seeks a legal advice from him. Since the duty of confidentiality covers information obtained by the attorney from any source besides from his client, its scope is broader than the attorney-client privilege in terms of providing a protection to the client. The Korean rules provide for the duty of confidentiality as well. However, a difference of the relevant rules between the U.S and Korea can be found in that the U.S. provision extends protection to any information relating to the client representation whereas the Korean provision seems to limit its protection to ‘secrets’ learned through the representation. Also, the Korean rules provide for a ‘public reason’ exception to the duty of confidentiality where the attorney can disclose the client’s secrets. This public reason exception is very wide in its scope and thus can be interpreted very liberally at the disadvantage of the client. The Korean laws do not specifically provide for the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine. The duty of confidentiality alone may not be sufficient for the full protection of client’s confidential information in that the disclosure of information in violation of such duty can still be used as evidence in trial and can incur actual damages to the client. Due to the significant levels of differences in ethical obligations between the two countries, an issue can arise whether a U.S.-licensed attorney, who is involved in cross-border legal disputes, should be subject to the ethics rules of the U.S. or Korea. This paper discusses the advantages and disadvantages of home-state approach, host-state approach, conflicts-of-law approach, international rules approach, and contract approach. This paper proposes that the parties and attorneys from both countries when entering into a contractual relationship specify the conflicts-of-law rules as delineated in ABA Model Rule 8.5(b) which can be used a rule for regulating and governing all the ethics matters arising from legal representations. This will provide a clear guideline and a sense of assurance to all the parties and lawyers that an ethical issue can be prevented or resolved according to their contractual intents and determinations.
참고문헌 (40)
- "American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 1.6(a)(b)", ~
- "California Rules of Professional Conduct 3-100", ~
- "Dixon v. State Bar, 32 C3d 728, 739, 187 CR 30, 37", ~ (1982)
- "Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(b)(3)(A)", ~
- "General Dynamics Corp. v. Sup. Ct., 7 C 4th 1164, 1191-1192, 32 CR2d 1, 18", ~ (1994)
- "Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495", ~ (1947)
- "It was published by IBA as a new code of conduct for the global legal profession" (2011)[URL]
- J. Mark Little, "The Choice of Rules Clause: A Solution to the Choice of Law Problem in Ethics Proceedings", Tex. L. Rev, 88, pp.855~ (2010)
- James E. Moliterno, "Emanuel Law Outline: Professional Responsibility" (2016), Wolters Kluwer
- Janine Griffiths-Baker, "Regulating Conflicts of Interest in Global Law Firms: Peace in Our Time?", Fordham L. Rev, 80, pp.2541~ (2012)
- "Jeffry v. Pounds 67 CA3d 6, 9, 136 CR 373, 375", ~ (1977)
- Joon Hwan Kim, "Third-Phase Opening of the Legal Services Market in South Korea: Liberalization or Protectionism?", Columbia Journal of Transnational Law
- "Los Angeles Bar Ass’n Form. Opn. 436", ~ (1985)
- Mark T. Schmidt, "‘I Can’t Tell You’ Privilege, Confidentiality, and the Compulsion of Testimony from the Transactional Lawyer", DCBA Brief, 29, pp.20~ (2017)
- Mary C. Daly, "Resolving Ethical Conflicts in Multijurisdictional Practice--Is Model Rule 8.5 the Answer, an Answer, or No Answer at All?", S. Tex. L. Rev, 36, pp.715~795 (1995)
- Misha Yang, "Confidentiality in the United States and China: An Ethical Conundrum and a Proposed Solution", Geo. J. Legal Ethics, 29, pp.1443~1451 (2016)
- Nathan M. Crystal, "“One, No One and One Hundred Thousand” ... Which Ethical Rule to Apply? Conflict of Ethical Rules in International Arbitration", Miss. C. L. Rev, 32, pp.283~291 (2013)
- "Newton v. Meissner, 76 Ill. App.3d 479, 498 (1st District 1979), citing People v. Adam, 51 Ill. 2d 46, 48", ~ (1972)
- Patricia Ginsberg, "An Ethical Dilemma of American Attorneys in China: The Conflict Between the Duty of Confidentiality to Clients and the Requirement of Disclosure to the Chinese Government", Spring Int’l L. Practicum, 12, pp.47~48 (1999)
- Paul W. Vapnek, "Confidentiality and Privilege" (2016)
- "Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 4003.3", ~
- "People v. Kor, 129 CA2d 436, 447", ~ (1954)
- "Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers §§68, 77∼86", ~
- Stephen Gillers, "Regulation of the Legal Profession" (2009)
- "Upgrade legal services" (2016)[URL]
- 김태봉, "변호사의 비밀유지의무", 법학논총, 36(4), pp.257~289 (2016), 법학연구소
- "대법원 2012, 5. 17. 선고 2009도6788 전원합의체", ~ (2012)
- 문재완, "변호사와 한국 사회 변화" (2008), 늘봄
- "변호사법 제26조", ~
- "변호사윤리장전 제18조", ~
- 이상수, "법조윤리의 이론과 실제" (2009), 서강대학교 출판부
- 장철준, "헌법상 변호인의 조력을 받을 권리와 의뢰인의 비밀보장", 헌법학연구, 23(1), pp.1~37 (2017), 한국헌법학회
- 정주백, "직무상 비밀에 대한 헌법상 보호", 토론문, 한국헌법학회, 사법정책연구원 공동학술대회, pp.86~ (2016)
- 차진석, "직무상 비밀에 대한 헌법상 보호", 토론문, 한국헌법학회, 사법정책연구원 공동학술대회, pp.101~ (2016)
- 채명성, "직무상 비밀에 대한 헌법상 보호", 토론문, 한국헌법학회, 사법정책연구원 공동학술대회, pp.95~ (2016)
- "형사소송법 제112조, 제149조", ~
- "헌법 제12조", ~
- "헌재 1992. 1. 28. 91헌마111", ~ (1992)