High-ranking officials, from vice ministers to heads of the Presidential Office's policy department, as well as leaders of economic and regulatory agencies, often find their way to major law firms after retirement. The influx of non-lawyer former bureaucrats into these firms as 'advisors' or 'specialists' raises questions about their roles.
Law firms justify this trend by citing the need to leverage decades of policy expertise and administrative experience accumulated in government. They argue that understanding how the government operates is essential for analyzing complex regulations and assisting corporate decision-making.
However, when these roles include explaining clients' positions to government departments and persuading them to change laws and policies, the situation changes. In countries like the United States, such activities are typically regulated under lobbying laws, while in South Korea, they can occur under the guise of 'advisory' or 'policy consulting' roles. This has led to calls for a lobbying registration system similar to the U.S. Federal Lobbying Disclosure Act, which would require disclosure of who meets with whom, who is being paid, and what laws or policies are being influenced. In this context, President Yoon Suk Yeol directed a review of a lobbying registration system during a Cabinet meeting on December 2.
On September 8, the investigative team at Aju Economy conducted a comprehensive survey of non-lawyer advisors and specialists from the top 10 law firms in South Korea, including Kim & Chang, Pacific, and others. The survey found a total of 697 individuals, including 26 at the ministerial level, 89 at the vice ministerial level, 138 at the local agency head level, and 149 at the director and department head level. Those with legal qualifications or private sector experience were excluded from this count.
Prevalence of Advisors from Regulatory Agencies
Kim & Chang leads in scale, with 170 advisors, including 11 at the ministerial level. Following are Sejong (101), Yulchon (89), YK (70), Gwangjang (68), Pacific (60), Hwawoo (57), Daeryuk Aju (43), Jipyeong (23), and Bareun (16).
The majority of these advisors hail from economic and financial regulatory agencies. Notable figures include former Financial Services Commission chairpersons Eun Sung-soo (Kim & Chang), Ko Seung-beom (Pacific), Choi Jong-ku (Hwawoo), and Kim Seok-dong (Jipyeong), as well as former heads of the Fair Trade Commission and the Personal Information Protection Commission.
Similar trends are observed among vice ministerial level advisors. Kim & Chang includes former presidential economic advisors Park Won-joo and Yoon Jong-won, as well as former vice chairpersons of the Financial Services Commission and Fair Trade Commission. Sejong features former vice chairpersons of the Fair Trade Commission and the National Intelligence Service, while Gwangjang includes former heads of the Financial Supervisory Service and the National Police Agency.
Experts emphasize the importance of the director and department head level, as these individuals draft legislation and exercise approval authority. While law firms may showcase ministerial level advisors as figureheads, actual influence is often exerted through networks of former directors and department heads.
Ministers as Figureheads, Directors as Influencers
Whether labeled as 'advisors' or 'specialists,' the interactions conducted under broad advisory contracts remain largely untraceable under current regulations. Although these roles are framed as legal consulting, they effectively function as administrative and legislative lobbying channels utilizing former officials' networks. Professor Lee Chang-hyun from Hankuk University of Foreign Studies noted, "Individuals without legal qualifications are entering law firms as advisors and effectively acting as lobbyists. This could be seen as a violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act, but addressing this practice is challenging."
A representative from a major law firm, speaking on condition of anonymity, explained that corporate demands have shifted from simple litigation and contract review to consulting on new business legislation and regulatory relief. They added, "The notion that former high-ranking officials can exert influence over their former departments is outdated. Instead, those with practical experience are hired to engage in logical and administrative persuasion with current officials."
There is growing support for bringing these 'former official advisors' into the formal regulatory framework. A key issue is defining the boundaries of permissible activities, specifically how to differentiate between legal representation and policy advocacy. The argument is to reserve litigation and legal representation for licensed attorneys while allowing separate professional roles for lobbying and policy advocacy, contingent on registration and disclosure. Establishing this boundary could open the door for not only former officials but also accountants, tax advisors, and industry experts to participate as registered lobbyists in the policy arena. However, a 'cooling-off' period restricting lobbying of former agencies immediately after leaving office is considered a crucial condition.
U.S. Has 12,000 Registered Lobbyists with Disclosure Requirements
In the United States, lobbying activities are regulated under the Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA) enacted in 1995. Former senators must wait two years, former representatives one year, and high-ranking executive officials one year before they can register as lobbyists. According to OpenSecrets, a nonprofit organization monitoring political funding, there are approximately 12,000 federally registered lobbyists as of 2024. These lobbyists are required to disclose their lobbying topics, expenditures, and the federal agencies and congressional offices they contact on a quarterly basis, with violations potentially resulting in civil fines of up to $200,000 and criminal penalties.
Activities representing foreign governments or political entities are governed by the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), established in 1938. Agents of certain foreign entities must register and regularly disclose their activities directed at U.S. government agencies or officials. This includes not only the nature of their activities but also related income and expenditures, with registration information available online. As stated by the U.S. Department of Justice, the purpose of this system is not to prohibit lobbying but to ensure transparency about 'who is doing what for whom.'
South Korean companies also operate within this framework in the U.S. Companies like Samsung and Hyundai hire lobbying firms in Washington and regularly disclose their activities. In contrast, what is considered a legitimate and transparent activity in the U.S. often takes place in South Korea under vague 'comprehensive advisory contracts' without any record.
Bar Association Opposes Lobbying Registration, Civil Society Calls for Transparency
However, the Korean Bar Association has consistently opposed the introduction of a lobbying registration system. Their primary argument is based on Article 109 of the Attorney-at-Law Act, which states that only licensed attorneys can represent clients before public institutions. They contend that implementing a lobbying registration system would undermine this principle.
The Bar Association also expresses concerns about the effects of opening the legal market. They argue that allowing foreign lawyers or firms to register as lobbyists would effectively open the domestic lobbying market without separate negotiations. There are fears that activities by non-lawyer brokers could lead to a lack of transparency in administrative processes. The Bar Association has submitted opposition statements regarding both the 2004 bill on the disclosure of foreign lobbying activities and the 2024 bill proposed by Representative Choi Jae-hyung on foreign agent registration, citing potential conflicts with the Attorney-at-Law Act.
Nevertheless, there are voices within the legal community advocating for the transparent regulation of what is effectively lobbying activity. Emeritus Professor Han Sang-hee from Konkuk University noted, "While the preferential treatment of former judges and prosecutors may only benefit a few powerful individuals, former official advisors can change policies and budgets, impacting the entire nation. These activities are commonly recognized as lobbying in other countries." He added that the proposed lobbying registration law would serve to officially document and record what has been a privately controlled lobbying process, providing an opportunity for civil society to monitor and check these activities.
The figure of 697 highlights the extensive network of former officials concentrated in South Korea's major law firms. However, there is no record of which companies they are influencing, which agencies they are engaging with, or what issues they are involved in. Even with the establishment of new investigative agencies, if this structure remains unchanged, the network of former officials will simply reconstitute around new institutions. This has led to calls for transparency regarding the 'shadow lobbying' structure, which lacks any documentation.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.