1.

Highlights of Korea’s Amended Attorney-at-Law Act on Attorney-Client Privilege

On January 29, 2026, Korea’s National Assembly passed an amendment to the Attorney-at-Law Act that expressly recognizes attorney-client privilege (“ACP”). The key provisions of Article 26-2 are as follows:
 

(1)

Non-disclosure of confidential communications (Paragraph 1)

An attorney and a client, or a person intending to become a client (collectively, the “client”), may refuse to disclose confidential communications exchanged for the purpose of providing or receiving assistance in connection with a legal case or matter. 
 

(2)

Non-disclosure of documents and materials prepared by attorneys (Paragraph 2)

An attorney and a client may refuse to disclose documents or materials (including those created and maintained electronically) prepared for litigation, investigation, or inquiry in relation to a matter handled by the attorney.
 

(3)

Limitations on privilege (Paragraph 3)

ACP may be restricted under certain circumstances, including where:
 

• the client consents to disclosure;

• the attorney is an accomplice to the client’s crime; or

• other laws contain special provisions providing otherwise.

(4)

Effective date and retroactive application

The amended Act will take effect one (1) year after promulgation. However, it will nevertheless apply to communications, documents, and materials created prior to the effective date (Addenda).
 

2.

Key Takeaways for an employer’s HR Practice

This amendment is expected to have significant implications not only for criminal matters, but also across a broad range of labor and employment scenarios, including the following: labor inspections by the Ministry of Employment and Labor (the “MOEL”), search and seizure actions, petitions/complaints and criminal filings, and ex officio investigations by the Labor Relations Commission (“LRC”). Key practical implications anticipated at this stage are summarized below.
 

(1)

Stronger legal protection for internal compliance and risk assessments

As a practical matter, an employer’s HR/Labor and Legal/Compliance departments frequently review sensitive matters and issues requiring confidentiality due to the nature of their work. With the introduction of ACP, communications with outside counsel, legal advice, risk assessment records, and other aspects such as compliance investigations and remedial measures may now receive statutory protection. As a result, an employer’s HR/Labor and Legal/Compliance teams may be able to conduct risk assessments and implement remedial measures more confidently and proactively, thereby contributing to strengthened compliance management.
 

(2)

A clearer legal basis to refuse production during labor inspections, investigations, or on-site inquiries

During MOEL labor inspections, search and seizure activities, document production requests or on-site inspections by the LRC, companies will now have a clearer legal basis to refuse production of communications with counsel (e.g., emails, KakaoTalk messages, call records), and attorney-prepared materials such as legal opinions and analysis reports. More importantly, such refusal would not trigger sanctions such as criminal fines or administrative penalties.

In recent years, the MOEL has been more aggressive with inspections than in the past. In particular, the number of search and seizure actions have increased in matters such as unfair labor practices, illegal worker dispatch/secondment, and criminal cases involving alleged violations of the Serious Accidents Punishment Act. In this environment, ACP is expected to strengthen corporate defense rights and the right to receive legal assistance in on-site investigative contexts.
 

(3)

ACP is limited to communications with attorneys licensed under the Attorney-at-Law Act

ACP applies only when legal assistance is received from an “attorney-at-law” under the Attorney-at-Law Act. Accordingly, for matters requiring strict confidentiality, it is advisable to involve outside counsel from an early stage and proceed with communications and review of the matter at issue through counsel. In addition, as mentioned above, while the amended Act will take effect one (1) year after promulgation, it will also apply to communications, documents, and materials created before the effective date. Therefore, even prior to the effective date, companies should consider implementing measures necessary to satisfy the practical requirements for ACP—such as institutionalizing ACP labeling/marking on documents and written communications with counsel and ensuring proper handling protocols.