‘Woe unto you, lawyers!’

Home > Opinion > Columns

‘Woe unto you, lawyers!’

Published: 02 Apr. 2025, 00:02

Audio report: written by reporters, read by AI

Ahn Hye-ri

The author is an editorial writer at the JoongAng Ilbo.

Enough is enough. Regardless of political affiliation, gender or generation, many Koreans watching the proceedings surrounding President Yoon Suk Yeol’s potential impeachment, the Constitutional Court’s upcoming ruling and the criminal trials of Democratic Party (DP) leader Lee Jae-myung must feel precisely this way.

“Rich, not guilty; poor, guilty.” The revolving door of legal elites wielding influence, the cartel-like privileges of retired judges and prosecutors, the judicialization of politics, and the politicization of the judiciary — these are not new. We thought we understood the ugly interplay between law and power. We were wrong. Judging by how things are unfolding, Korea is no longer merely a society where legal professionals divvy up modest privileges among themselves. The law has become a weapon used to mock the common citizen’s sense of justice.

Constitutional Court justices sit in the main chamber at the court for a questioning session to judge validity of impeachment of Justice Minister Park Sung-jae in central Seoul on March 18. [JANG JIN-YOUNG]

This is no exaggeration. Consider the Constitutional Court. It finally announced the ruling date—April 4—for President Yoon’s impeachment case on Monday. We’ve heard endless legal wrangling over the current eight-justice bench, the necessity of a full nine-member panel, and the implications of future vacancies. The ruling and opposition parties have locked horns over the nomination of Ma Eun-hyuk, a judge seen as sympathetic to the DP. Accusations of unconstitutionality and procedural illegitimacy have flown back and forth, with each side seeking either to block or to push through the appointment before the impeachment ruling. Legal jargon and convoluted theories have obfuscated the truth. But here it is: Both camps are angling to tilt the outcome by installing judges to their liking — or, more bluntly, to manipulate the ruling itself.

And their efforts were not in vain. The political leanings of the Constitutional Court justices clearly influenced their decisions in the impeachment rulings on Korea Communications Commission Chairwoman Lee Jin-sook and Prime Minister Han Duck-soo — both cases pushed by the DP, which currently dominates the legislature.

At this point, the average citizen unfamiliar with the law can't help but ask: if guilt or innocence depends on who the judge is, then what is the point of the law? Sadly, this is nothing new. A 2018 survey of judges, prosecutors and lawyers found that half acknowledged the influence of personal connections in court — and some even said these ties could sway indictments and verdicts. Maybe people could overlook this once. But after watching the impeachment case unfold, it's no stretch to say the public’s faith in the legal system has been shattered.

The appeals court’s ruling last month on Lee Jae-myung’s violation of the Public Official Election Act is another case in point. The district court had sentenced him to one year in prison, suspended for two years — enough to bar him from running in the next presidential election. But on appeal, with no new facts to justify a complete reversal, a different judge acquitted him. This isn’t just a failure of consistency or predictability, which the public rightly expects from the law. It’s what the appellate court said that truly defies belief.

Democratic Party chief Lee Jae-myung arrives at the Seoul Central District Court in Seocho District, southern Seoul, for a hearing on corruption allegations on April 1. [NEWS1]

The prosecution had argued that Lee’s campaign claim — that he changed zoning rules for the Baekhyeon-dong development only because he was "coerced by the Ministry of Land" — was demonstrably false. The appeals court disagreed, calling it a “somewhat exaggerated expression of pressure” and not a lie. What legal doctrine or precedent justifies this? From the layman’s perspective, it’s sophistry. One can’t help but wonder: had Lee been an ordinary defendant, not a powerful politician with his hands on both the legislature and a shot at the presidency, would the judges have been so generous in interpreting his intent?

When the law falls so far short of common sense, what use is it at all?

Nearly a century ago, Fred Rodell, a Yale Law School professor, published “Woe Unto You, Lawyers!” (1939) at age 32. In it, he excoriated lawyers as “high-class racketeers” who use esoteric jargon and arcane knowledge to dominate the public. He argued that trials are decided not by legal principle, but by political interests and arbitrary judgment.

When the law insults common sense, the public, like Rodell, has every right to ridicule it. Let us hope that the Constitutional Courts ruling on April 4 reminds us that common sense still has a place in justice.

Translated from the JoongAng Ilbo using generative AI and edited by Korea JoongAng Daily staff.