Korean Supreme Court Recognizes Attorney–Client Privilege, Restricts Prosecutors’ Seizure of Legal Advice

By Juwon Kang, March 25, 2026

Key Ruling

The Supreme Court formally recognized attorney–client privilege (ACP) in Korean criminal proceedings.
The Court ruled that prosecutors acted unlawfully when they seized legal advisory documents exchanged between a law firm and its client.
As a result, the Court upheld lower court decisions canceling part of the seizure order.

The dispute arose during a criminal investigation involving Jang Ha-won, former CEO of Discovery Asset Management.
Prosecutors accused him of misleading investors and selling defective investment funds.
Charges included:
- Fraud under the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes Act
- Violations of the Capital Markets Act
However, the courts ultimately ruled not guilty at every level:
- Trial Court
- Appeals Court
- Supreme Court, which dismissed the final appeal.

During the investigation, prosecutors seized communications and documents exchanged between the company and its law firm.
These materials included:
- Messages with lawyers
- Emails
- Legal advisory documents prepared by attorneys
The defense argued that:
- These communications were confidential legal advice.
- They were unrelated to the specific crimes listed in the search warrant.

The trial court ruled that the seizure was partially unlawful.

Key reasoning:

Effective legal representation requires trust that communications with lawyers remain confidential.
The constitutional right to counsel implies that communications made for the purpose of receiving legal advice must be protected.
Despite objections from the defense at the time of the seizure, investigators still confiscated these materials, violating that protection.
Prosecutors argued the law firm might have aided or participated in the alleged crime, but the court found insufficient evidence to support that claim.
The court therefore canceled the seizure of lawyer–client messages, emails, and legal documents, while leaving other parts of the seizure intact.

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision and emphasized the importance of attorney–client confidentiality.

Key principles:

If legal advisory documents could be seized without restriction, clients would hesitate to disclose full information to their lawyers.
This would undermine the constitutional right to effective legal counsel.
Legal advisory materials often contain core defense strategies and confidential information.
Therefore, seizing such materials without strict limits could seriously violate the defendant’s right of defense.

The Court stated that exceptions exist, but only in limited circumstances:

This decision is widely seen as a landmark recognition of attorney–client privilege in Korean law.
It strengthens protections for:
- Confidential legal advice
- Defense strategy
- The constitutional right to counsel
The ruling also limits prosecutors’ ability to seize law firm communications during investigations.