Court Rules Lawyers Who Neglected Duties Must Compensate Client

A court has ruled that a legal team must pay 3 million won in compensation to their client for neglecting their duties, such as failing to submit letters of reflection and petitions and delaying the payment of a court deposit.

According to the legal community, the Civil Appeals Division 11-2 of the Seoul Central District Court (Presiding Judges Kwak Hyung-seob, Jeon Seo-young, and Yang Hyung-kwon) ruled partially in favor of the plaintiff in the appeal filed by a client, identified as A, against their former defense counsel for damages.

This overturns the initial ruling from the first trial, which had dismissed all of A's claims.

Indicted in July 2023 on charges of violating the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (including the production and distribution of sexually exploitative materials), A filed for damages, claiming that their right to a fair trial was infringed due to the defense team's negligent performance.

The claimed amount was 50 million won.

The dispute unfolded while the appeal was underway following cross-appeals, after A was sentenced to a prison term in the first trial in May 2024.

The defense team had decided in consultation with A's side to pursue a settlement with the victim, and to make a court deposit if the settlement fell through.

A court deposit refers to funds deposited with the court to help restore the victim's damages.

The defense team also shared plans to bundle a letter of reflection from A and a petition from A's father to submit to the court as a written opinion.

However, investigations showed that the defense team failed to submit the apology and letters of reflection to the court by the sentencing date of October 2 of that same year, and paid the deposit just two days before the sentencing.

A ultimately had their appeal dismissed in the second trial.

The reasoning for that ruling at the time noted as an unfavorable factor that "compensation for damages, such as reaching a settlement with the victim, had not been achieved even up to the appellate trial."

The first trial court had concluded that the defendants did not fail to exercise ordinary care in conducting the lawsuit compared to an average lawyer, and that no causal relationship existed between their fault and the outcome of A's appeal.

It reasoned that since A had expressed remorse in the statement of reasons for appeal and final statement, the admission of the crime was already reflected in sentencing, and the fact of the deposit alone could not alter the sentencing conditions.

However, the appellate court ruled that the defendants neglected their duty of care as a good manager, causing A to lose the opportunity to receive a practical evaluation regarding sentencing.

Regardless of whether A could have actually received a reduced sentence in the appeal, the court recognized that A suffered mental distress due to the defense team's breach of contract.

The court noted that because the day before the sentencing was a temporary holiday, the appellate court delivered its verdict without being aware of the deposit.

The court pointed out that "the defendants (A's lawyers) should have made the deposit at an appropriate time so that a sentencing decision reflecting the fact of the deposit could be received."

The court determined that the defendants were at fault for delaying the criminal deposit, citing that there appeared to be no particular circumstances necessitating the deposit right before the sentencing date, and that they seemed to have delayed it based on a vague expectation that the court would postpone the sentencing date.

(Photo: Yonhap News)
※ Please note: This article was translated by AI and may contain errors.