Attorney-Client Privilege and Improvement of the right to reject seizure

The client must be able to tell his secret to the attorney in order to receive the best assistance. The client can receive proper legal assistance from the attorney only if there is trust that the secret will not be revealed. Thus, the confidentiality of communication between the client and the attorney is an essential element of the right to assistance of counsel. It is a global trend to protect the secret of communication between attorneys and clients by regulating the seizure of the attorney's office of an investigative agency. However, Korea is only obligated not to divulge the client's secrets to attorneys, and there is no way to protect the secrets when they are violated by investigative agencies. In order to correct these problems, it is argued that the Korean Bar Association should introduce ‘Attorney-Client Privilege’. However, in Korea, where the litigation structure is different from that of the United States and there is no discovery system and a comprehensive law of evidence, the introduction of ‘Attorney-Client Privilege’ is more likely to add to the confusion. Rather, Korea, which has a legal system similar to Germany and France, which specifically stipulate the right to reject seizure in the Criminal Procedure Act, is expected to be in harmony with the current system to resolve the problem by revising the provisions of Article 112 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Since the right to reject seizure is to protect the client's secret, it should be revised to be exercised by not only attorneys but also clients. And, the secret of the exchange between the attorney and the client must be protected regardless of whether the attorney delivers it to the client or the client delivers it to the attorney. Since there is a high possibility that the client's secret is included in the documents prepared by the attorney, it is desirable to revise it to ‘the object created by the attorney for the purpose of legally assisting the client or containing the contents of the communication exchanged with the client’. In addition, the reason for the restriction of the right to reject seizure should be specifically revised to ‘if the client's consent is given, if the attorney is suspected of the client and an accomplice, if the attorney is suspected of destroying evidence, concealing criminals, or acquiring stolen goods, if the object of the right to reject seizure is the result of a crime, used for a crime, or related to a crime.’ Finally, it should be amended to a specific procedure that will be used when an attorney or client exercises the right to reject seizure or appeals against an investigative agency.