On January 29, 2026, the National Assembly passed a landmark amendment to the Attorney-at-Law Act, formally establishing statutory protection for confidential communications between legal counsel and their clients (attorney-client privilege).

Attorney-client privilege is a well-established right in common-law jurisdictions, shielding confidential communications made for the purpose of seeking legal advice from compelled disclosure. In Korea, like in most civil law countries, this right was not fully acknowledged because of the lack of statutory basis, but the passage of this amendment now officially codifies attorney-client privilege as a protected right within the Korean legal framework.

The introduction of attorney-client privilege further strengthens the right of companies to receive assistance from their counsel and to defend themselves in criminal procedures (e.g., search and seizures) and administrative investigations, which is expected to bring various changes in the investigation procedures and practices of investigative agencies. In particular, attorney-client privilege will enable companies to better resolve issues arising from on-site investigations by the Korea Fair Trade Commission (the “KFTC”) or search and seizures by investigative agencies on charges of violating fair trade-related laws and regulations, including the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (the “MRFTA”).
 

• Prior to the amendment, the lack of statutory basis for attorney-client privilege had made it practically very difficult for attorneys to defend clients (companies or individuals) when an investigative agency requested access to or seized the details of correspondence with counsel regarding legal advice. In April 2023, the KFTC amended the Rules on KFTC Investigation Procedures (KFTC Notice No. 2023-11) to add Article 11 (2), which provides that compliance departments should generally be excluded from the scope of investigations, subject to certain exceptions. However, as these rules are merely internal procedures, they were insufficient to fully safeguard attorney-client privilege and the defense rights of investigated parties.

• The amendment adds new provisions to expressly codify attorney-client privilege, notably: (i) Article 26-2 (1), allowing non-disclosure of confidential communications exchanged between an attorney and his/her client for the purpose of seeking or providing legal assistance, and (ii) Article 26-2 (2), allowing non-disclosure of documents or materials that were prepared by an attorney for litigation, investigation or inquiry. Please refer to the table below for details.
   

• During onsite investigations, companies are expected to be able to more proactively request the protection of materials held by their legal and compliance departments and other attorney-client privilege-covered documents. In the past, regulators have at times requested and gathered legal review materials prepared by legal and compliance teams during administrative investigations, and documents drafted solely for legal assessment for compliance purposes have sometimes been misinterpreted or used as evidence of violations or awareness of such violations. The introduction of attorney-client privilege should now help protect many of these materials from disclosure.

• The codification of attorney-client privilege is expected to transform how companies manage internal risk. Previously, many firms were hesitant to conduct thorough compliance audits or pre-inspections, fearing that the resulting documentation and legal advice could be seized and used against them in future investigations. With attorney-client privilege now protecting attorney communications, legal advice and compliance outcomes, companies can now proactively monitor their compliance status and prevent violations with greater confidence. This legal foundation encourages a more rigorous and active review of pending legal risks by counsel.
   

• Formalize attorney-client privilege labeling: Although the amended law does not take effect until one year after its promulgation, its supplementary provisions extend protection to counsel communications, documents and materials created before that effective date. Accordingly, even in KFTC investigations that take place before the law’s effective date, if privileged materials become subject to investigation/disclosure in the interim, companies may have grounds to request protection based on the amendment’s legislative intent and relevant KFTC procedural rules. To this end, companies should promptly implement formal attorney-client privilege labeling for all attorney communications and ensure to meet attorney-client privilege requirements.

• Prepare internal guidelines for in-house communications: Currently no concrete standards or court precedents involving attorney-client privilege exist under the amended Attorney-at-Law Act, and it is unclear whether attorney-client privilege will extend to in-house communications. Nevertheless, the Anglo-American interpretive approaches referenced in the amendment suggest that attorney-client privilege may extend to communications with in-house counsel regarding legal advice. Therefore, companies should prepare internal guidelines covering the content and methods of such communications.

• Keep track of legislative developments: In practice, there still remain a number of outstanding issues, including: (i) the scope of communications protected by attorney-client privilege (e.g., in-house counsels, foreign counsels), (ii) whether attorney-client privilege can apply to communications with attorneys without attorney-client privilege labeling, (iii) the scope of “attorney work-products” that may be withheld, and (iv) the authority, timing and procedure for determining exceptions under Article 26-2 (3) of the amendment. These questions will likely be resolved over time through future interpretations or guidelines issued by the relevant authorities. Accordingly, it will be essential to closely follow legislative developments and official interpretive guidance.

[Korean Version]