KBA: Strong Support for Incorporating Judicial Evaluation Results into Personnel Decisions... 'A Step Toward Greater Judicial Trust'

[Financial News] The Korean Bar Association (KBA) has welcomed the amendment to the Court Organization Act, which officially incorporates the results of attorneys’ Judicial Evaluation into judicial personnel decisions.
In a statement on the 30th, the KBA expressed its strong support for the partial amendment to the Court Organization Act, which provides for the official inclusion of attorneys’ Judicial Evaluation results in judicial performance reviews.
The KBA noted that, until now, judicial performance reviews have been conducted solely within the judiciary, drawing criticism for being closed off. The association emphasized that the amendment, which officially reflects the KBA’s Judicial Evaluation in the assessment of judges’ qualifications, will serve as a pivotal opportunity to dramatically enhance transparency and objectivity in judicial personnel decisions.
Addressing concerns about objectivity, the KBA stated that such doubts are based on misunderstandings. Attorneys are not direct parties to litigation but are experts who can closely observe the conduct of many judges in court.
The KBA also highlighted the fairness of the evaluation process, explaining that all 14 regional bar associations conduct named surveys among their members, and the KBA aggregates these to produce statistically meaningful results. The association added that over the past decade, there has been consistency in the evaluation results between the highest- and lowest-ranked judges.
Regarding the issue of guaranteeing judges’ right to explanation, the KBA argued that even if evaluation results are reflected in personnel reviews, the Judicial Personnel Committee will conduct a comprehensive review, and procedures can be established to provide opportunities for judges who receive negative evaluations to explain themselves. The association also pointed out that under the current closed internal review system, judges have no way of knowing the grounds for their evaluations.
In response to concerns that judges might distort rulings due to awareness of attorney evaluations, the KBA dismissed such fears as purely theoretical. Instead, it asserted that the Judicial Evaluation system will motivate real-world judges to treat all parties fairly, conduct proceedings transparently, and thoroughly examine legal principles.
Finally, the KBA stated that only when judicial independence is balanced with democratic oversight and monitoring can the judiciary truly earn the public’s trust. The association expressed its support for the completion of this legislation, believing it will lay the foundation for a trusted judiciary.
Previously, on the 20th, the Special Committee on Judicial Reform of the Democratic Party of Korea announced a plan to include the KBA’s Judicial Evaluation in judicial performance reviews, which had previously been conducted by court presidents or chief judges. In response, the Supreme Court of Korea reportedly expressed a negative stance, citing concerns over lack of objectivity and fairness, potential conflicts of interest, and insufficient procedures for explanation.

scottchoi15@fnnews.com Choi Eun-sol Reporter