• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.25 no.2
• /
• pp.3-17
• /
• 2015

For many years commentators have requested more active regulation of attorney ethics in international arbitration. Gradual deterioration of ethical standards in international arbitration will bring disrepute and, once its reputation is lost, it could take decades to rebuild confidence. The first reason for increasing unethical behavior is that there is no ethical code generally applied to all lawyers participating in international arbitration. A second reason might be that nobody is actively regulating attorneys in international arbitration. The first step to solve this problem is that major arbitration institutions should cooperate to enact a uniform code of conduct to be generally applied to all attorneys representing parties in international arbitration. Recently, IBA and LCIA prepared guidelines on party representation in international arbitration, and the guidelines will help attorneys follow uniform standardsof ethics. However, this will not be sufficient. There should be a regulating body to monitor attorney ethics and take sanctions against unethical attorneys accordingly. Arbitrators, who can see unethical behavior by attorneys from the closest distance, are the most appropriate regulating force rather than courts of arbitration seat or an attorney's licensing country. Of course, arbitrators don't have powers to withdraw or suspend an attorney's license, but they have powers to control attorneys'behavior within arbitration proceedings such as an allocation of fees and costs, barring the assertion of claims or defenses, drawing adverse inferences, or precluding the submission of evidence or testimony. Furthermore, arbitrators should be provided with such obligation as active control of attorney ethics. Even arbitration institutions should participate by imposing on an attorney who is a repeat offender a suspension from appearing in future arbitrations. Unethical behavior will decrease through concerted actions among arbitrational institutions to introduce a uniform code of conduct and to empower arbitrators for more efficient regulation of attorney ethics.

• Journal of Digital Convergence
• /
• v.12 no.7
• /
• pp.1-10
• /
• 2014

In February 2014 Korean Bar Association has amended Professional Ethics Code as to stipulate attorney's duty to protect personal information. While existing Korean law and Professional Ethics Code has made attorney to keep client's confidential information, attorney's newly promulgated obligation has its meaning in that personal information of subject other than client is not protected through confidentiality rules, given that confidentiality obligation is interpreted to protect only client's information relating to representation. Moreover, duty to protect personal information deals with not only disclosure and use of information, which confidentiality rules is about, but also collection and retention process, access to and correction and care of information and even destruction of information. Amid unprecedented theft of personal data in several national banks and other serious leakage reported recently, this paper is going to contemplate the scope and application of the duty to protect personal information with hope to contribute to starting discussion on it.