Korean Bar Association Demands Structural Reform of Law Schools: 'Abolish Vacancy Supplement System'

## Bar Association Takes Strong Stance Against Judicial Exam Revival Debate

The Korean Bar Association has issued a comprehensive statement expressing deep concern over the resurgence of debates surrounding the revival of the judicial examination system and criticisms of the current law school system. In a detailed commentary released on June 27, 2025, the association emphasized that rather than engaging in what they termed 'old debates that cause institutional confusion and social conflict,' the focus should be on diagnosing and addressing the structural problems within the current law school operations.

The association's position comes in response to recent public discussions, including comments made by President Lee Jae-myung during a town hall meeting in Gwangju on June 25, where he questioned whether the law school system might be becoming a form of hereditary privilege system and suggested that there should be alternative routes to becoming a lawyer beyond law schools. The Bar Association's response reflects the ongoing tension between those who support the current law school system and those who advocate for alternative pathways to legal careers.

## Historical Context and Recurring Controversies

The Korean Bar Association reminded the public of the significant social conflict that arose during the Park Geun-hye administration in late 2015, when the Ministry of Justice announced a four-year extension of the judicial examination system, which was originally scheduled to be abolished in 2017. The association pointed out that this government announcement led to institutional instability and social conflict, undermining the fairness and stability of the legal profession training system.

The association expressed regret that similar debates about legal profession training systems continue to emerge, stating that it cannot help but feel disappointed that the same arguments are being repeated without proper examination of objective statistics and indicators regarding the law school system. They criticized some media outlets and organizations for expanding and reproducing suspicions that differ from the truth without properly understanding the law school system based on objective data.

## Defense of Current Law School System

The Korean Bar Association provided a robust defense of the current law school admission system, arguing that it has been proven to be fair and rational through objective and multifaceted evaluations. The admission process includes undergraduate grades, the Legal Education Eligibility Test (LEET), language proficiency, and interviews, which the association claims provides a comprehensive assessment of candidates.

According to the association, the law school system has successfully expanded the entry of students from diverse academic backgrounds into the legal profession compared to the previous judicial examination system, and has increased diversity in terms of university backgrounds. The association also countered arguments about economic barriers, citing scholarships and ultra-low interest loans available to law school students, describing claims that poor students cannot study at law schools as 'conceptual arguments that greatly deviate from objective statistics and reality.'

## Acknowledgment of Structural Problems

While defending the overall law school system, the Korean Bar Association acknowledged that current law school operations are increasingly deviating from the original purpose of legal profession training system reform discussed by the Judicial Reform Promotion Committee. The association particularly criticized the vacancy supplement system, which allows law schools to admit additional students up to 10% of their quota in the following year to fill vacancies created by non-registration or withdrawal of enrolled students.

The association described this system as causing 'serious distortions between the goals of training legal professionals and law school operations through expedient operations.' They pointed out that some law schools are questioning their capacity as legal professional training institutions, with bar exam pass rates falling below 30%, yet these institutions are focusing on survival through expedient systems rather than finding fundamental solutions.

## Proposed Structural Reforms

The Korean Bar Association proposed several comprehensive measures to address the structural issues within the current law school system. First, they called for the establishment of a consultative body involving the executive, legislative, and judicial branches along with the Korean Bar Association to discuss judicial reform tasks. This body would comprehensively discuss not only improvement directions and supplementary measures for law school operations but also citizen-centered judicial systems and expansion of lawyer work areas.

Second, the association emphasized the need for a comprehensive examination to determine whether law schools are operating properly according to the original intentions discussed by the Judicial Reform Promotion Committee when law schools were introduced. They noted that the increase in the number of lawyers to OECD average levels, which was discussed at the time, was already exceeded around 2022, and called for discussions on normalizing the lawyer population and the promised integration of adjacent qualifications that was premised on increasing the number of lawyers.

## Call for Comprehensive Structural Adjustments

The third major proposal from the Korean Bar Association involves promoting structural reforms in law school operations, including mergers and cancellation of accreditations. The association specifically called for the abolition of the vacancy supplement system and strict adherence to legal admission quotas to normalize the quality of education. They emphasized that bold structural adjustments, including mergers and cancellation of accreditations for underperforming law schools, are necessary.

The association stressed that these structural reforms should be implemented as a prerequisite for any future discussions about system modifications. They argued that without addressing these fundamental issues, any debate about alternative systems would be premature and potentially counterproductive. The Korean Bar Association's position reflects a commitment to maintaining the law school system while acknowledging the need for significant improvements to ensure it fulfills its original educational and professional training objectives.