Re-Examining Criminal Lawyer Fees in Korea after 2026 Court Decision
In June, 2025 we published this article describing contingency or “success” fees in South Korea and whether or not they were lawful in the Korean court system.
Many of our clients frequently ask about contingency fee agreements when hiring legal representation for criminal cases in Korea. Some have even shared experiences where other Korean lawyers demanded or already received contingency fees, leading them to question the validity of such agreements.
Pureum Law Office made this post to help clarify the current legal standing of contingency fees in Korean criminal matters, in light of a significant Korean court ruling in January 2026.
Recap: The Korean Supreme Court’s 2015 Ruling
In July 2015, the Supreme Court of the Republic of Korea in a 2015 ruling held en banc that contingency fee agreements between lawyers and clients in criminal cases are invalid because they violate “good morals and social order” under Article 103 of the Civil Act. The court warned that linking criminal defense outcomes directly to financial compensation could undermine trust in the justice system and be contrary to the public mission of lawyers.
This decision represented a dramatic shift from past practice. Historically, Korean criminal fee arrangements often included “success” fees (e.g., payment if a client was acquitted, given a suspended sentence, released on bail, etc.). Even the Korean Bar Association’s recommended engagement forms previously accommodated such provisions, and many lawyers and clients assumed these agreements to be routine.
Although the Supreme Court clarified that past contingency agreements cannot be retroactively invalidated solely because they were labeled as “contingency fees,” the court made it clear that any such agreements entered after its 2015 holding would be void as contrary to public order.
New Developments: The January 2026 Korean Lower Court Ruling
On January 23, 2026, the Seoul Central District Court Civil Division 1-3 delivered a noteworthy judgment in a dispute involving We Law Firm (법무법인위) and a former client (Client A). The case involved an additional fee agreement:
“If Client A is found not guilty on all counts, 30 million won will be paid.”
After Client A was acquitted on all charges, they refused to pay, arguing that the contingency portion of the fee agreement was invalid under Civil Act Article 103. However, the lower court ruled in favor of We Law Firm and awarded 33 million won plus interest to the firm. Let’s take a look at the judgment and see why this was significant.
Key Reasoning of the Court
The court did not simply disregard the Supreme Court’s 2015 precedent. Instead, they emphasized that criminal contingency fee agreements should not be evaluated uniformly.
Whether a contingency arrangement violates good morals and social order must be assessed case-by-case, based on factors such as how the fee was calculated, what the contractual terms are, and whether the agreement will actually undermine public trust in the criminal justice system.
Criminal defense outcomes are significantly affected by the professional, diligent efforts of defense attorneys, not just judges. Lawyers have a dual public-ethical role — both as private professionals and as vital catalysts in upholding justice and protecting fundamental rights. But, the contractual relationship between attorney and client in a criminal case is based on free agency, and fee agreements should also be left to the parties’ freedom.
Banning Contingency Fees: Does it Promote Real Justice?
Interestingly, the court also raised concerns about the unintended consequences of banning contingency fees altogether. They observed that the ban has led to a “deformed” fee structure, where lawyers respond by setting excessively high retainer fees instead.
According to the court, established lawyers (especially former members of the judiciary) can demand high upfront retainers due to their reputations and bargaining power. In contrast, younger or lesser-known lawyers lack such leverage and may avoid criminal defense work entirely as a result.
This harms defendants most, particularly those in urgent or vulnerable situations. The court stated:
“As a result, clients in desperate situations, such as those under arrest, have no choice but to hire lawyers with previous experience in the judiciary while paying high retainer fees, making it impossible to restore trust in the judiciary — which was the very purpose of prohibiting contingency fee agreements in criminal cases.”
What’s the conclusion? The court ruling distinguished general contingency fee agreements from those that might actually threaten the integrity and fairness of criminal justice, and thus held that the specific agreement with Client A was valid in this context.
The Bottom Line on Contingency Fees in Korea
If you are a foreign or domestic client involved in a Korean criminal case, note that:
- Contingency fee agreements after 2015 have generally been treated as void, but this new ruling may reopen legal avenues for properly structured success fee agreements under specific circumstances.
- Courts may now look at the fairness, structure, and proportionality of a contingency fee before declaring it invalid.
When dealing with such fee agreements, it’s critical to review the specific language and context, because an overly broad or poorly structured success fee could still be deemed invalid.
How Pureum Law Office Can Help
Pureum Law Office (PLO) specializes in criminal defense and legal advisory services for English-speaking clients in the Republic of Korea (ROK). We understand the frustration and challenges foreign clients face when working within Korea’s legal system. In 2025, we were honored to be designated by Global Law Experts as the Criminal Law Firm of the Year. Our team is committed to continue advocating for our clients. Whether you’re facing criminal charges or navigating complex contractual disputes like fee agreements, our team provides clear and strategic counsel, get in touch with us today.
Let us help
