KLAWGURU.COM

Korean Law Demystified!

Fired Your Lawyer? That Will Be ₩30 Million: Court Strikes Down Law Firm’s Punitive Termination Clause

By ,

A Korean appellate court has voided a law firm’s retainer clause that required clients to pay a fixed ₩30 million penalty for terminating the engagement — finding it an unfair standard contract term that exploited the firm’s superior bargaining position. Here are the key points.

Issue

Is a retainer clause imposing a fixed ₩30 million penalty on a client who terminates a law firm engagement — regardless of how far the case has progressed or why the client is leaving — enforceable under Korean contract law?

Facts

  • In June 2022, client B retained Law Firm A to represent her in divorce proceedings. The retainer agreement included a clause requiring B to pay an additional ₩30 million (plus VAT) as a penalty if she terminated the engagement for any reason after work had commenced — including change of circumstances or simply changing her mind.
  • During the litigation, B requested a consultation with her assigned attorney, who declined, saying it was unnecessary. B had met the attorney only once, at a preparatory hearing, and had never received a face-to-face consultation. Finding the attorney untrustworthy and dissatisfied with the firm’s offer to swap attorneys, B demanded the attorney’s resignation.
  • Law Firm A sued B for the ₩30 million penalty in December 2023.

Lower Court Decision

  • The trial court ruled in Law Firm A’s favor, finding the penalty clause was not disproportionately burdensome given the nature of the divorce case, the anticipated value of the property division at stake, and the success fee the firm could have expected to earn.

Appellate Court Decision

  • The Seoul Central District Court appellate division reversed on December 12, 2025, ruling entirely in B’s favor. Law Firm A did not appeal, making the decision final.
  • The court held that the retainer agreement qualified as a standard form contract under the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions, and that the penalty clause was void on multiple grounds.

On the unfairness of the clause, the court identified four specific problems.

  • The penalty was triggered by any termination after commencement of work — regardless of how much work had actually been done or how far the case had progressed. A client terminating on day two faced the same ₩30 million liability as one terminating on the eve of trial.
  • The agreement contained no reciprocal penalty provision. If the firm terminated the engagement or was at fault for the breakdown, the client received nothing. The clause was entirely one-directional.
  • The fixed amount could exceed the firm’s success fee — meaning the firm stood to gain more from being dismissed than from winning the case. This creates a perverse incentive that could undermine the firm’s motivation to litigate diligently.
  • The penalty was fixed at ₩30 million regardless of the difficulty of the case or the effort actually invested — making it both excessive and arbitrary.
  • The court also found that Law Firm A, as a legal expert, had exploited its superior position in the contracting relationship by incorporating such a clause into a standard form agreement presented to a lay client.

On the facts, the court added that even if the clause were valid, B could not fairly be characterized as having terminated the engagement to avoid paying a success fee — she left because her attorney refused to consult with her.

Key Takeaways

  • A fixed termination penalty in a law firm retainer agreement, triggered regardless of case progress and containing no reciprocal obligation on the firm, is likely to be void as an unfair standard contract term under Korean law.
  • Law firms occupy a position of informational and professional superiority over lay clients. Courts will scrutinize retainer terms that exploit that imbalance.
  • A penalty clause that could make dismissal more profitable than winning creates a moral hazard the court will not allow to stand.
  • The absence of any reciprocal penalty for firm-side termination or misconduct is itself evidence of structural unfairness.
  • The standard industry practice — forfeiting the retainer fee upon termination without additional penalty — sets the baseline against which unusual clauses will be measured.

Why This Matters

This decision is a significant check on law firm contracting practices in Korea. It signals that courts will not simply defer to whatever terms a firm chooses to include in its standard retainer agreements — particularly where the clause is designed to lock clients in regardless of the firm’s own conduct. For law firms, the ruling is a prompt to audit termination provisions and ensure any penalty bears a rational relationship to actual work performed and fees foregone. For clients, it confirms that an agreement signed under conditions of professional imbalance is not necessarily enforceable in full.

Article: https://www.lawtimes.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=220325

Leave a comment