As the Korean Bar Association put the brakes on ‘AI Continent Aju’, the first artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot of a domestic law firm, for violating lawyer advertising regulations, the controversy over the illegality of legal AI services is reigniting. Lawyers familiar with LegalTech agree that “legal AI is subject to the Attorney General’s Law, but there is no problem if it is completely free.” However, opinions are divided on whether AI services should be viewed as advertisements.
“Legal AI is the core of corporate and law firm advertising”
The most problematic thing is whether this ‘AI Continent Aju’ service constitutes an advertisement. Article 8, Paragraph 1 of the ‘Regulations on Lawyer Advertisements’, which is the basis for the Korean Bar Association’s request for correction from Daeryuk Aju, states that ‘Lawyers, etc. shall not advertise in the form of free or unfairly low-cost legal consultation.’
Regarding this, there is an argument that “viewing chatbots provided free of charge to users as advertisements is an overly expansive interpretation of the provision.” On the other hand, there are opposing opinions that say, “If you are encouraging people to use the services of a company or law firm through a chatbot, it can be viewed as advertising.” Kim Ki-won (39, 5th bar examination), president of the Korean Bar Association, said, “If there is a possibility of making clients aware of the existence and information of a lawyer or law firm, it can be broadly viewed as an advertisement.”
There is also controversy over whether it violates the Attorney-at-Law Act. Article 109 of the Attorney Act punishes ‘a person who is not a lawyer but handles or mediates legal work related to a legal case while receiving benefits or having them provided to a third party.’ There is analysis that the Bar Association's official document, “Please explain whether the content of legal work using AI is reviewed by lawyers,” is a ploy to take disciplinary action for violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act into consideration.
The first issue is whether legal AI falls under the category of ‘non-lawyers.’ Some are of the opinion that “AI is not applicable because it is a system,” but many are of the opinion that “it is applicable.” An official from a Legaltech company said, “It is logically correct to say that AI is a system and therefore does not fall under the Attorney-at-Law Act, but it is different from the purpose of the Attorney-at-Law Act, so I doubt whether it will be persuasive.” He added, “For example, if the AI gives an incorrect answer and becomes a problem, the operator is responsible. “It’s like it’s difficult to avoid,” he said.
However, if legal AI is operated for free, it is difficult to view it as a violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act. Attorney Koo Tae-eon (55, 24th class of the Judicial Research and Training Institute) Lin said, “A violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act is established when a non-lawyer provides legal advice in exchange for money.” The Korean Bar Association responded, “It is a matter to be judged based on the mission of the continental states.”
“AI guidelines are needed even now”
The domestic legal tech industry is concerned that if sanctions continue without guidelines for the development and use of legal AI, the development of new industries may be hindered. The Bar Association’s position is, “We agree that guidelines are necessary, but we will review them strictly and carefully as there are parts that are intertwined with lawyers’ profession and people’s lives.”