The Height of the Judge’s Bench Should Reflect the Height of Responsibility [The Courts, Demystified]

[Financial News] When I first appeared in court after beginning my legal practice, I realized once again that the judge’s bench was much higher than I had imagined and that the gaze from above could sometimes be cold. Today, I would like to share my experience of a first “initiation” as a former judge turned attorney, along with the reflections that followed.

At my first trial as counsel for the defendant in a divorce case, the presiding judge was preparing to determine the visitation arrangements through an interim order. I tried to explain the arrangement my client wanted, but the judge suddenly cut me off. “Counsel, is this your first family law trial?” I was momentarily taken aback. I had merely been given an opportunity to speak and was stating my client’s position—why ask me that? The judge’s gaze was not curious; it was sharp and cold. I wanted to respond, “I probably have far more experience with family law trials than you do,” but I held back because I feared it might disadvantage my client. I simply replied, “It is not my first.” In fact, while serving as a judge, I had presided over divorce cases for many years. I had also worked as a family and juvenile law specialist judge at Suwon Family Court. I had handled family law trials until shortly before retiring, yet I was asked such a question in the courtroom where I was taking my first step as an attorney.

When I confided in a fellow attorney after the trial, the attorney advised me, “That level of public rebuke is nothing unusual once you practice law. Shake it off quickly and develop resilience.” Later, when I looked into that judge, stories emerged from attorneys who had suffered even worse treatment. Through several channels, I learned that the judge was unusually difficult. Most judges conduct trials with dignity and a gentle manner. Still, the judge’s bench looked high when viewed from below. From a litigant’s perspective, evidence requests that clearly ought to be granted are often rejected, especially on appeal. After several of my evidence requests were denied despite stating sufficiently persuasive purposes for proving the facts, I sometimes regretted that I might have been too strict in limiting counsel’s evidence requests when I was a presiding judge.

Trials may appear simple. The court hears the parties’ arguments, establishes the facts through evidence, applies statutes and precedents, and reaches a conclusion. But when countless facts and pieces of evidence become intertwined in a single case, the process grows highly complex. The presiding judge’s role is to work through this complicated and lengthy process with dignity, step by step. Thorough knowledge of the case record is fundamental. These days, however, mastering the record alone is not enough to make a good presiding judge. No matter how well a judge understands the record, a judge who cannot communicate smoothly with the litigants will inevitably be an inexperienced presiding judge.
For example, if a judge does not use the microphone properly on the bench, litigants may have difficulty understanding what the judge is saying. The same is true if the judge speaks too quickly or mumbles. If the judge conducts the trial while looking only at the record and avoiding eye contact, the parties’ sense of procedural satisfaction declines significantly.

While serving as a judge, I recorded court proceedings and monitored myself to improve my communication skills. I showed the recordings to fellow presiding judges and sought their advice, and I also received communication coaching from a professional. As a result, I identified problems such as looking at the record more often than necessary during trials and making too little eye contact with the litigants. To correct these habits, I even practiced conducting trials alone in my office while looking in a mirror.
At one court, judges watched videos of each presiding judge conducting trials—with only the presiding judge filmed—and selected an exemplary judge by vote based on factors such as eye contact, vocal delivery, and maintenance of order. I also honed my courtroom skills by watching those videos. Perhaps because of those efforts, I was once selected as an outstanding judge. The National Court Administration has undertaken many initiatives to strengthen public confidence in the judiciary, including matching communication experts with presiding judges who have reached a certain level of experience.

I know that most presiding judges in the judiciary are working to strengthen their communication skills. After becoming an attorney, I have found that judges who use abusive language or directly insult litigants or counsel are rare. Still, as my experience at my first trial shows, there seem to be some judges who continue to deliver subtle public rebukes. A judge’s authority is not established by using a cold gaze to intimidate counsel or the parties. The courtroom is a place for communication. As a former judge turned attorney, and as someone who once sat on the bench, I venture to say this: “The height of the judge’s bench should reflect the height of the judge’s responsibility.” The gaze from above should be warm, and every word should convey respect. I believe courtroom authority should be maintained in this way.
Kim Tae-hyung, partner attorney at Barun Law LLCAttorney Kim Tae-hyung is a specialist in family and inheritance law. After being appointed as a judge in 2007, he concluded 17 years on the bench in 2024 as a presiding judge at Suwon Family Court and joined Barun Law LLC. During his judicial career, he handled family and inheritance cases as well as juvenile proceedings for a total of eight years beginning in 2012. In particular, during the five years before his retirement from the judiciary, from 2019 to 2024, he handled numerous family and inheritance cases at Suwon Family Court as a family and juvenile law specialist judge, building expertise in the field. He is also the author of the bestseller “Inheritance, Divorce, Juvenile Proceedings, and the Courts: Insights from a Presiding Judge” (Pakyoungsa, 2023).