초록 close

Under the law school system in Korea, an exploding number of lawyers have practiced year and year to the extent that the existing conventional law market can hardly afford to absorb them. Against this backdrop the lawyers have come to turn their eyes on the in-house counsel arena deemed to be relatively at the incipient of its growth. Despite this unprecedented situation relevant laws as well as rules have yet to exist to apply to and regulate on the in-house counsels in Korea. The only regulation actually regarding the in-house counsels in the relating law in Korea is the Attorney Act, Article 38 which stipulates both the prohibition and the limited permission of lawyer's employment in the governmental or the corporate bodies. In this context the controversies surrounding the in-house counsels have as matter of factly been subject to the authoritative interpretations of Korean Bar Association. In this vein the problems regarding the attorney's obligation to keep the client's confidential informations and the attorney and client privilege have yet to be resolved in Korea by way of regulations or the court's precedents. This study has mainly focused on whether the in-house counsel has a duty to the confidential informations, and the client as well as the in-house counsel has the privilege thereon. In addition this study has noted whether the in-house counsel has the obligation to report the wrongful acts of the management to the relevant outside authorities even in the absence of the current regulations to mandate the in-house counsel's noisy withdrawal.