Former Supreme Court Justice Park Jung-hwa: Trust in Trials Begins with Thorough Hearings

"The ruling states there is no evidence, but the client clearly refuted this point by presenting evidence piece by piece."

This was an unfamiliar moment for Park Jung-hwa, a senior advisor at Yulchon Law Firm, who has presided over trials for 32 years. Meeting a party involved in a case outside the courtroom, the individual shared stories not included in the ruling. Even after the court explained why the evidence was not accepted, the sense of injustice lingered. Park noted that despite the confusion, she discovered her responsibilities as a lawyer.

In an interview with Aju Economy on September 30, Park emphasized that restoring trust in trials requires parties to have ample opportunities to speak and receive explanations. She highlighted the importance of not only how quickly cases are resolved but also how thoroughly parties' stories are heard during the process. Park joined Yulchon last month.

Beginning her judicial career in 1991, she served as a chief judge at the Seoul Administrative Court and the Seoul High Court before becoming a Supreme Court Justice from 2017 to 2023. After her retirement, she taught at Korea University Law School and worked as a private attorney, gaining a new perspective on cases that had long been subjects of judgment.

There was a noticeable difference in the meaning of evidence from both inside and outside the court. While parties believe the materials they submit support their claims, the court may not accept them as legally sufficient evidence. There can also be a gap between what is written in documents and what parties remember about the circumstances at the time of their creation.

Park stated, "When the court rejects evidence, it often does not provide detailed reasons, which is a customary practice in drafting rulings." She argued that it is necessary to adequately explain significant claims made by parties in the rulings.

Delays in trials also appeared differently from outside the court. Parties expressed frustration that while they waited a long time, they did not have enough time to present their stories in court.

She remarked, "In reality, the time for parties to argue their cases seems to have decreased, while the waiting time without scheduled hearings has become excessively long."

A recent client expressed disappointment after an appeal hearing concluded without accepting witness and expert testimony, stating, "I felt robbed of my second trial." Park believes it is essential to reflect on the procedural disappointments conveyed in such statements, regardless of the specifics of individual cases.

She noted, "Shouldn't we provide parties with a certain level of procedural satisfaction?" and emphasized that without thorough hearings, parties may find it difficult to accept the rulings.

As a solution, she pointed to the need for more fact-finding judges. She explained that sufficient hearings in the first and second trials, addressing facts and evidence, would reduce the burden on parties to contest decisions in higher courts.

Park stated, "Increasing the number of Supreme Court Justices would help alleviate some trial delays," but she stressed that fundamentally, lower court rulings must be thorough and instill trust in the parties involved.

She firmly believes that the approach of relying on the personal sacrifices of judges to handle cases cannot continue. Park identified the backlog of cases and workloads accumulated since the COVID-19 pandemic, along with societal changes emphasizing work-life balance, as contributing factors to trial delays.

She clarified, "This does not imply that judges are lazy or not working. They are doing their best. The need for work-life balance is a trend we must follow, and ultimately, the issue is that there are too few judges for the number of cases."

Park also evaluated judicial reform based on its impact on people's lives. She expressed concern that even systems designed for rights protection could become burdensome for those in need if trials are prolonged and costs increase.

She remarked, "Parties unable to afford costs may feel a sense of despair, thinking they cannot even pursue litigation due to lack of funds," adding that even if they win, they might find the results inefficient compared to the expenses incurred, making it burdensome in any case.

Park recalled moments of fulfillment during her time as a judge, particularly when handling labor and refugee cases at the Seoul Administrative Court. She considered the circumstances of workers contesting wrongful dismissals and refugees pleading for the inability to return to their home countries within the legal framework.

She remembered that period as a time when she could express her convictions and values as a judge.

As a Supreme Court Justice, she recalled a case where she determined that a transgender individual's request for gender correction should not be denied solely based on having minor children. She found significance in interpreting the law to protect the rights of minorities, which are often difficult to safeguard through legislation requiring broad consensus.

However, she acknowledged that conclusions cannot be reached solely based on a desire to help. The cases that linger in her memory are those where she struggled to find legal principles.

Park shared, "There are times when I want to help someone, but no matter how I interpret the current law, it feels insufficient," expressing her frustration when months of contemplation yield no theoretical resolution.

Such experiences have led her to contemplate the role that legal professionals must retain in the age of artificial intelligence (AI). While AI can assist with case law searches and drafting documents for routine cases, she believes that the responsibility of questioning whether existing answers are applicable must remain with humans.

She stated, "In cases where there is a need to protect minorities and the vulnerable, where value judgments or conflicts of interest arise, or where changes in precedent are necessary, we must engage in deep contemplation."

To facilitate such contemplation, she believes the composition of the Supreme Court must also diversify. She noted that during deliberations, even when reviewing the same records, different issues could be identified, and initial opinions could change through discussion.

Park explained, "People typically find it challenging to transcend their own experiences. It is not just a division between conservative and progressive; everyone has different perspectives and ways of viewing cases." This means that when individuals with varying genders, generations, legal experiences, and backgrounds come together, they can examine issues more broadly.

Now, she is assisting clients primarily with appeal cases at Yulchon. She participates in consultations with lawyers who have backgrounds as Supreme Court research officers, sharing issues and engaging in the drafting process.

Her experiences as a private attorney highlighted the limitations of her work, which prompted her to consider joining Yulchon. The firm's commitment to "value growth and ethical management," as conveyed by CEO Kang Seok-hoon, along with the presence of former judges among the lawyers, influenced her decision.

She remarked, "The lawyers I worked with seemed happy," believing that trust and harmony among members are essential for ethical management to be possible.

Park is aware of the societal scrutiny surrounding former Supreme Court Justices joining law firms. She stated that merely providing her name as an advisor would be "detrimental to my life thus far." She explained that for clients who expect influence from her former position, the outcome will not change for that reason.

She said, "Having spent over 30 years as a judge, I find it difficult to be anything but honest with myself."

While she has transitioned from a position of judgment to one of support, her goal remains to contribute to reaching correct conclusions. She also feels the pressure to deliver satisfactory results. However, she believes that the relationship with clients does not end with the outcome.

"Even if we do not achieve a satisfactory result, I want to communicate with clients and provide comfort. I hope my values and life direction remain consistent throughout this journey."