[Exclusive] Constitutional Court begins hearing on merits of AI advertising regulation by Korean Bar Association… Referral to full court

Constitutional petition, including ‘Article 5 of the Rules on Lawyer Advertising’
Daeryun Law Firm “Restrictions on accessibility to consumer information”

The Constitutional Court decided to hear the Korean Bar Association's constitutional petition regarding artificial intelligence (AI) advertising regulations filed by Daeryun Law Firm at the full court. A full-fledged review will be conducted to determine whether the Korean Bar Association's regulations prohibiting advertising of AI-based legal services infringe on lawyers' freedom to practice their profession.

On February 10, the Constitutional Court referred the case to the full court to confirm the unconstitutionality of Article 23, Paragraph 2, Item 7 of the Attorney Act filed by Daeryun Law Firm. This means that the Constitutional Court recognizes the case as subject to review on the merits and deals with whether it is unconstitutional.

After receiving a case, the Constitutional Court reviews the legal requirements in a designated tribunal consisting of three judges, and makes a decision to dismiss the case if the requirements are not met. However, as this case moves to the merits hearing stage, we plan to conduct an in-depth review of the unconstitutionality of the Bar Association's AI legal service advertising regulations.

The core issue of this constitutional petition is whether the regulation of AI-based legal services infringes on the essential freedom of lawyers to perform their duties and whether it undermines the public interest by excessively restricting consumers' access to legal information.

Daeryun launched the AI-based legal counseling program 'AI Daeryun' on January 16, but the Korean Bar Association banned advertising of the program on the grounds that it may violate the Attorney General's Law and filed a constitutional petition while considering disciplinary action.

The provisions that Daeryun took issue with were ‘Article 23 (2) No. 7 of the Attorney Act’ and ‘Article 5 of the Rules on Lawyer Advertisements’. According to the regulations, lawyers cannot advertise the use of AI programs other than those certified by the Bar Association and supervised by the responsible attorney. Additionally, advertising that uses AI programs to allow consumers to receive direct legal advice or connect with a lawyer is also prohibited.

Daeryun argues that the regulation infringes on lawyers' freedom to practice their profession and restricts consumers' access to information by preventing the use of AI-based legal services.

This case is evaluated as an important case that obscures the constitutional legitimacy of AI technology and legal service regulation. A legal official predicted, "As legal services using AI are expanding, it is highly likely that legal standards will be established to determine whether regulation of the Bar Association hinders innovation in the legal market or is a reasonable regulation with public interest purposes."

Park Dong-il(39, Bar Examination 8) Representative attorney Daeryun said, “This Constitutional Court hearing is meaningful as it provides an opportunity to review the constitutional legitimacy of AI legal service regulations,” and added, “The legal market also needs change amid the global AI transition.” He added, “Daeryun is expanding consumers’ accessibility to legal information by providing ‘AI Daeryun’ for free,” adding, “It is time to reconsider whether the Bar Association’s regulations are in line with the promotion of public interest.”

Reporter Jinyoung Lee

[View full article]
[Exclusive] Constitutional Court, Korean Bar Association begins hearing on merits of AI advertising regulation... Referral to the full court (link)