KLAWGURU.COM

Korean Law Demystified!

Right to a Lawyer in the Room: Supreme Court Rules Private University Dismissal Was Void for Denying Legal Representation

By ,

In its first explicit ruling on the subject, the Supreme Court has held that private university faculty members have the right to have their lawyer present and speaking on their behalf during disciplinary committee proceedings — and that dismissing that right renders the resulting discipline procedurally void. Here are the key points.

Issue

Where a private university faculty member requests that their retained lawyer attend and make statements at a disciplinary committee hearing, and the committee refuses — allowing only off-site waiting — does that refusal constitute a serious procedural defect that voids the resulting disciplinary action?

Facts

  • A, an associate professor at a private university, faced a disciplinary committee hearing in 2022 on charges of sexual harassment and forced indecent conduct within the institution. The committee ultimately dismissed him.
  • A requested that his retained lawyer attend the hearing with him and make statements on his behalf. The committee refused, informing A that his lawyer could wait in a nearby waiting room and consult with A if needed during breaks. In practice, no consultation between A and his lawyer occurred during the hearing.

Lower Court Decisions

  • Both the trial and appellate courts ruled against A. They found that the right to have a lawyer present was not explicitly guaranteed under the applicable statutes, and that because the lawyer had been allowed to wait nearby and consult if needed, A’s ability to exercise his right of defense had not been materially impaired.

Supreme Court Decision

  • The Supreme Court (Criminal Division 3, presiding Justice Lee Heung-gu) reversed on August 13, 2026, and remanded to Seoul High Court — in the first ruling to explicitly confirm the right to legal representation in private university faculty disciplinary proceedings.

The court’s reasoning proceeded as follows.

  • In disciplinary proceedings involving adverse action — including dismissal — it is necessary to guarantee the subject’s right to exercise a defense through a lawyer. This principle applies to public servants, including faculty at national and public institutions.
  • The level of procedural protection available to private university faculty in disciplinary proceedings must be equivalent to that afforded to faculty at national and public institutions. The constitutional and legal rationale for the protection does not differ based on whether the employer is public or private.
  • Having a retained lawyer present in the hearing room and making statements on behalf of the faculty member is part of the essential content of the right of defense — not a peripheral convenience. Absent special circumstances, a disciplinary committee may not refuse this.
  • Allowing a lawyer to wait outside and consult only during breaks does not satisfy this requirement, particularly where — as in this case — no actual consultation occurred during the hearing.
  • Where the right of defense was not substantively guaranteed in this way, the disciplinary proceedings contain a serious procedural defect and the resulting discipline is in principle void.

Key Takeaways

  • The right to have a lawyer present and speaking during disciplinary hearings is part of the essential content of the right of defense in proceedings that can result in dismissal or other serious adverse action.
  • Private university faculty are entitled to the same level of procedural protection as public university faculty and civil servants in disciplinary matters. The public or private character of the employer does not reduce this entitlement.
  • A waiting-room arrangement — where the lawyer is nearby but not present in the hearing — does not satisfy the right to legal representation, especially where no effective consultation actually takes place during the proceedings.
  • Disciplinary proceedings that deny this right without special justifying circumstances contain a serious procedural defect that voids the resulting disciplinary action as a matter of principle.
  • This is the Supreme Court’s first explicit ruling confirming these principles for private university faculty disciplinary contexts.

Why This Matters

This ruling has immediate practical significance for private universities across Korea, many of which have conducted disciplinary hearings under the assumption that legal representation was a courtesy rather than a right. Faculty dismissals and other serious disciplinary actions that were carried out without allowing lawyers to be present and make statements may now be vulnerable to challenge. For university administrators and their legal counsel, the decision calls for an urgent review of disciplinary procedures and committee rules to ensure legal representation rights are explicitly built in. For faculty facing disciplinary proceedings, it establishes a clear and enforceable right — and confirms that a committee’s refusal to honor that right is not a minor procedural irregularity but a fundamental defect that voids the outcome.

Article: https://www.lawtimes.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=226226

Leave a comment