The Korea Joonang Daily has a good piece concerning the effect of over-regulation on Korean innovation. The article brings to my mind the important role Korean Law Firms should play in preserving economic and individual liberties (basic rights).
The reality is without a strong push in the National Assembly (which seems hopeless) the, only option is the courts. As many readers may know, I formerly worked for the Constitutional Court of Korea. The Constitutional Court can be a useful tool in fighting the numerous useless, unnecessary, peculiar and often simply non-nonsensical Korean regulations.
The answer to this issue, thus, may be to encourage the few proactive, unconflicted and experience Korean Law Firms with experience with complex contentious litigation to take these type cases to the Court. Korean Law should grant the right to courts to award attorney fees to prevailing lawyers for a sum that is commensurate with the actual cost of the legal representation. We would see, likely, instant changes.
The articles, notes, in part that:
“Last year, the World Economic Forum ranked Korea’s regulatory burden 105th out of 138 surveyed countries, a drop from 98 in 2009 study.
On the other hand, the United Kingdom, which carried out extensive regulatory reforms in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, climbed to 25 last year, a leap from 86th in 2009. The United States was ranked 29th and Japan 54th, far ahead of Korea. . .
A July report titled “Startup Korea” conducted by McKinsey and commissioned by Google Campus Seoul and the Asan Nanum Foundation found that 13 of the world’s top 100 start-ups would not even able to launch their businesses in Korea because of legal incompatibility, while 44 of them would have to revise their business models to meet regulatory requirements.
Only 43 of the 100 companies would be able to operate in Korea with their business models intact, according to the report.”
One, useful, solution to this issue plaguing Korea is the active use of attorneys in the courts. Most major rights we consider, in the United States, now, sacrosanct were vigorously fought for by lawyers in courts. A good start would be to award attorney fees to prevailing lawyers in cases against the government that are actually commensurate with the actual cost of the legal representation.
This would encourage Korean Law Firms to take on cases for clients without the means to retain these type of lawyer necessary to prevail in these matters. Note – the ubiquitous Korean Law Firms are not, often, adequate for cases that concern issues that may be perceived as cases that may come back an bite them. Thus, often these firms are conflicted, but are still willing to take on a case. However, the case, often, is handled in a softball manner. Many recent examples are evident to those that know these realities.
Thus, the better Korean Law Firms, often, are known for taking on the most sensitive and contentious of cases in an unconflicted and nuanced manner. Few laws firms, in Korea, have these capabilities, because of, among other things, Korean legal and cultural realities.
Hopefully, for Korea, we can encourage great Korean Lawyers to take on these type cases. Korea needs a Bar that vigorously defends economic and individual liberties (Basic Rights).
- Why are Legal Fees at Korean Law Firms Higher than New York and London: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
- Finding a Korean Lawyer/Law Firm for your Business in Korea
- Enforcement of Arbitral Awards in Korean Courts: Arbitration Law Basics
- Korean Smart City Opportunities for Foreign and Domestic Companies Doing Business in Korea
- Arbitration against Korean Government Agencies in Korea: Korean Arbitration Law Basics.
- Expiration Versus Termination of a Distribution Agreement in Korea: Korean Distributor Basics
- Korean Government Official Prosecuted in U.S. for Violation of Korean Law? Application of Korean Law in U.S. Courts
- Korean Intellectual Property Protection Strategies in Korea: Trademark Law Korea
- Liquidated Damages vs. Penalty Damages: Korean Contract Law Basics
- Does a Korean court have the power to issue a preliminary attachment on Korean assets stemming from a foreign court claim?