Earticle

초록

영어

The discourse about 'optimum number' of lawyer should be changed now because the quantitative approach of 'optimum number' is meaningless. Under our lawyer system that has been formed excluding market competition from the beginning, taking out the market-oriented and economic concept called 'optimum number' all of sudden and training lawyers suitable to it after quantifying the number will result in nothing else but just ceaseless administrative failure. In our lawyer system under the management control of judicial bureaucracy, any 'optimum number' shall be restored to 'quantitative control' which will be followed by a solid entry barrier of any form. On the contrary, important question is what the qualification of lawyer expected by our country or requested by our society and economy should be and what kind of conditions and environment should be secured in order to foster the lawyers who own such qualification. The concept of 'optimum' should be concentrated on the issue of establishing such criteria and our ability to foster lawyers corresponding to such criteria. The concept of 'optimum number' is, in general, subject to agreement of economics theory because the concept of 'optimum' itself contains the discourse of economics. However, numerous premises should be suggested in order to calculate it in the relation with reality. A judgment is necessary on what should be controlled and what should be considered as a matter of course. The question is what kind of premises are required for lawyers. This paper claims that current barrier of entry for lawyer qualification should be abolished resolutely. Enrollment quota control of law school or lawyers examination system, which is too much burdensome to those who take the exam, does not make any contribution to the goal such as normalizing the legal service market or securing so-called lawyer quality, but just has a role to limit the number of lawyers and control the legal service market. Of course, in order to manage the quality of lawyers the role of government or lawyer's association is absolutely necessary and needs to be actually effective. But that should not work in a way to determine decisively the legal service supply and cause a reduction of demand itself in turn. It will be reasonable that their intervention shall be made in an indirect method such as controlling the lawyer training courses or assisting and encouraging those courses at the level of government or professional association. In other words, restrict and thorough post-regulation will not only contribute to normalizing the legal service market but also raise public confidence in legal service so that it may make a direct contribution to realizing the rule of law. Current aspect of our rule of law in 2009 is at a important turning point. The law school system is the one that makes the most critical and omnidirectional effect. Probably the department of justice or lawyer associations might be indulged in an idea that it shall be safe as long as they can control, in their discretion, the number of lawyers through means such as enrollment quota control or lawyers examination system, but even if such idea is effective one, the impact that this law school system gives to our legal system is beyond description. Demolishing the enrollment quota control system, changing it to a reasonable approval system and, at the same time, changing the lawyers examination system to a substantial qualifying examination system that screens unqualified candidates led by lawyers and law schools, and consequently maximizing supply to our legal service market in a short period of time, this is what this epoch demands us to do. In short, increasing the number of lawyers as early as possible is the mission of the highest priority that our today's reality imposes on us.

목차

1. 서론: ‘적정수’의 담론구조
 2. 계획의 전제: 법치의 실현
 3. 물적 토대: 법률서비스시장의 성장
 4. 전망과 평가
 5. 결론
 Abstract

저자

• 한상희 [ Han, Sang-Hie | 건국대학교 법학전문대학원 교수 ]

참고문헌

발행기관

간행물

표지보기 관심저널 등록

• 간행물명

  입법학연구 [Journal of Legislative Studies]

• 간기

  반년간

• pISSN

  1229-9251

• 수록기간

  2000~2026

• 등재여부

  KCI 등재

• 십진분류

  KDC 345 DDC 320