[Social
Forum]
The Judicial Examination VS Law School
Social
Desk
As the
Ministry of Justice announced that the abolition of the bar exam will be
postponed until 2021, law school students in all parts of the country,
including Seoul National University, refused to attend the rest of the semester
and collectively submitted voluntary resignations. Also, all of the 59
professors in the law school of Seoul National University announced a statement
against the Ministry of Justice’s postponement of the abolition of the bar exam.
Moreover, after the bar exam applicants’ tonsure, they
picketed with signs and demanded to have face-to-face talks with the head of
the law school, who is resisting the abolishment of the bar exam.
The
pros and cons of the bar exam and law school have always been a heated
controversy. But recently, controversy arose again with the Ministry of Justice’s
announcement that the bar exam that was planned to be abolished in 2017 would
be postponed until 2021.
In the
view of the maintenance of the bar exam, anybody can attempt upward movement
without limitation and can train more competent legal professionals. The bar
exam is open to people who earned 35 credits in law, regardless of the method
of learning (university, college, correspondence college, or self-study). The
successful candidate’s average duration of study is about 5 years. When
they pass the bar exam, they enter the Judicial Research and Training Institute
and are evaluated
for 2 years. During the long study period, students can learn about law, and
during the Training Institute period, competence and evaluation in many
quarters are possible. However, under the legal system, it is only possible to
take the bar exam after receiving one's undergraduate degree and graduating
from three years of law school. And, because of its high pass rate, it lowers
lawyers’ fees by producing too many lawyers. The bar exam
produces less than 1,000 lawyers, but in the case of law school, it produces
about 18,000 lawyers, about 20 times more. Also, it is not limited to just
learning law, it can produce judicial officers that are distinguished in many
different fields. But there is a shortcoming with its tuition being beyond
their practice, considering that their parents are to retire at the standard
age. Law school also adds fuel to Korea’s qualification
fever, which requires top TOEIC scores and highly recognized university
degrees. Moreover, it is controversial because law schools do not show exam
results. Pass or fail is determined behind closed doors, so there is an opinion
that it is unfair. It has led to criticism that the law school system is for
people who have many judicial officers in their family. For the position of the
protection of the judicial examination, they denounce law schools that attempt
to abolish the judicial examination and support the stance in which anyone can
become a judicial officer regardless of age, class, and academic background. In
practice, they argue about 85% of people support the judicial examination and
want to sever the link passing down poverty or wealth to their children. Also, they
criticize the position of law school, which is the hereditary succession of
wealth and lets only wealthy children become judicial officers, preventing
opportunity for ordinary people. Most of all, if the judicial examination and
law school are maintained simultaneously, more judicial officers could be
trained, allowing people to enjoy reasonable and high-quality legal benefits.
In practice, the public opinion about the approval rate of maintaining the
judicial examination is high. On the contrary, for the position of law schools,
if the judicial examination were retained, there would be more examinees that
risk their livelihoods to pass the examination, and it is not appropriate for
an era of internationalization because jurisprudence is studied and taught
focusing on the judicial examination. Also, becoming a judicial officer through
law school is cheaper than the costs of the judicial examination. Recently, it
has been stated that high school graduates and people of lower classes rarely
passed the bar exam. Law school provides diverse scholarships and
entrance-related benefits such as special admissions to lower-income groups,
and they have reduced the period of study to 3~5 years so they could defend
against training the examinee who spent several years studying for the bar exam
to avoid wasting 10 or 20 years. However, for the stance of the judicial
examination, specially selected children from wealthier families have been
selected to enter more easily. Most of all, on average, lawyers from the
judicial examinations are highly acclaimed to be more competent than judicial
officers from law school. And, the reason why law schools insist on abolishing
the judicial examination is for equal treatment of lawyers, unlike today’s favorable treatment of the judicial examination lawyers.
There
is an opinion to retain the judicial examination and law school simultaneously,
but it has the negative possibility to split into 2 factions and would only
erect more barriers. This matter is expected to be a fierce battle and it would
exert its influence under the direction of a related bill. Also, it could be
influenced by a decision of the constitutional court challenged as examinees
filed a petition. Even if the judicial examination were abolished, there is
always the possibility of a revival.
The
examination which trains national judicial officers should reflect public
opinion and be retained.
Social Forum2차.docx