SOUTH KOREA

Team size
In-house departments of two-to-five and six-to-20 were most likely, with each accounting for 30.4 percent of those responding. Groups of 21-50 were next with 17.9 percent, followed by departments of one (12.5 percent) and finally, 51 or more (8.8 percent).

Over the coming year, most surveyed in-house counsel expected their teams to remain the same size. Other than the 61.3 percent that said this, 36.7 percent anticipated growth in team size and just two percent said their teams would shrink. The few that said their teams would shrink noted a changing business model, at times due to cost and an upcoming increased reliance on external counsel, while those remarking that their teams would grow mentioned an increasing workload due to company expansion. Workload (remaining constant) and cost were also reasons for in-house counsel expecting their teams to remain the same size.

Recruitment
Over half of respondents (53.1 percent) work in companies that use recruiters as the most common method of hiring in-house lawyers. Other noteworthy ways of locating in-house counsel in South Korea according to respondents include placing job advertisements (32.7 percent) and referrals from other in-house lawyers (20.4 percent). This year’s top two were also the most popular answers last year, but in reverse order.

KEY ISSUES AND CONCERNS
Many respondents when asked what concerns they had about the current legal market said that it was overly saturated. They also noted that the budget their departments receive does not allow for them to do the work to the best level, while some stated that their advice had been ignored, so that it was a case of earning company trust. In-house counsel are still struggling for empowerment in many Korean organisations it seems. According to one: “until now, Korean companies tended to neglect in-house counsel’s legal advice”, while another stated “In-house counsel do not have much say in our company”. Still, others are being leant on too heavily it seems: “It’s tough to deal with junior level staff in the commercial/business team when they want in-house counsel to make a decision for them on every issue, even [those of a] commercial, business nature, so that they can avoid taking the blame if things go wrong”.

A less than vibrant economic situation in the country is also taking its toll. According to one community member there “Overall, continued soft orders make competition hotter than ever, leading to the business [being] more focussed on sales, survival and cost saving rather than on risk management”, with another reflecting the comments of his Seoul peers: “The uncertainties in the Korean economy in general will have spillover effects on [those of us in] the in-house community”.

From a regulatory perspective, compliance with the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA), as with its equivalent legislation in other Asian jurisdictions, is a concern for many in Korea.

Working with external counsel
The increased reliance on external counsel foreshadowed by the few that said their in-house teams would shrink is backed up on the whole, as 46.9 percent expect to use outside aid more over the coming 12 months. 44.9 percent anticipate an equal reliance on outside counsel, while only 8.2 percent see themselves using law firms less during the coming year.

Increasingly complex and diverse work was why most of those that thought their use of external counsel would increase did so, as well as an incrementing workload. Some who said their use of external help would remain the same remarked that law firms are only factored in when the company faces an unexpected litigation. Others expected a steady amount of legal work, so saw no reason to adjust the amount handled outside the company. Some who said they intend to use external counsel less said that, rather than concerns such as cost or lack of understanding, it was due to expecting less work in the coming year, though one participant stated that when workload diminished, the preference was to outsource less rather than shrink the in-house team.

The three issues above were concerns had by many within South Korea over the past year, with excessive fees being noticed by 46.9 percent and a failure to understand the business causing problems for 26.5 percent. Other issues that were of high concern include unexplained fees (18.4 percent), a lack of updates (14.3 percent) and wrong or bad advice being given (10.2 percent). (Figure 26)

As it was last year, expertise in a specific area is the forefront reason for some external counsel standing out from others, with 63.3 percent making decisions based on this. Second was reputation of a law firm (44.9 percent), fees came third and both personal relationship with a lawyer and relationship between company and law firm are regarded fourth-highest at 26.5 percent. Reputation of an individual lawyer and responsiveness were the only other aspects thought to be of high importance by over a fifth of participants, each with 20.4 percent of the votes. (Figure 25)