Must an Attorney attend the Disciplinary Hearing?: A 2026 Supreme Court Ruling
An employee facing a disciplinary hearing asks to bring an attorney into the room and let that attorney speak on his behalf. The employer says no, but offers a compromise: the attorney can wait in a nearby room, and the employee can step out to consult if needed. The hearing proceeds. The employee is dismissed.
Was that compromise good enough? On August 13, 2026, the Supreme Court said no. It must be noted that the case involved a private school professor - but the reasoning speaks directly to how any employer in Korea should run a disciplinary committee.
The Facts
Professor A taught at University C. He was accused of sexually harassing and assaulting a graduate student, B, and the university's disciplinary committee found the allegations substantiated.
Before the hearing, A asked to appear together with his attorney and have the attorney speak on his behalf. The committee refused. Instead, it had the attorney wait in a nearby room, telling A he could step out during the hearing to consult if he needed to. The committee proceeded on that basis and ultimately dismissed A.
One of the arguments raised was by A later was that he was being denied his attorney's presence and this was a serious procedural defect.
The case turned on a gap in Korean law. While Public school teachers have a clear right to legal assistance during disciplinary proceedings, private school teachers have no similar statutory provision. Then, should private school teachers receive the same procedural protection as their public school counterparts?
What the Lower Courts Said
Both the first instance court and the appellate court sided with the university based on the following:
First, they found that A had received meaningful legal help in substance, even without his attorney physically present at the table. He submitted a written opinion through counsel, and his attorney was available nearby for consultation during the hearing.
Second, the courts found no legal basis compelling the result A wanted. Private school statutes regulate disciplinary procedures in detail but say nothing explicit about a right to retain counsel.
The Supreme Court Disagreed
The Supreme Court took a different view. Among other things, the Court reasoned that the Special Act on the Improvement of Teachers' Status and the Protection of Their Educational Activities was written to unify the grievance procedures available to private and public school teachers precisely so that private school teachers would receive relief comparable to what public school teachers receive. If that is the purpose behind unifying the appeal procedures, the Court reasoned, the same logic should extend to the level of procedural protection guaranteed during the disciplinary hearing itself.
The Court also pointed to the Private School Act, which expressly guarantees a disciplined teacher's right of defense. Having a retained attorney attend the hearing and speak on the teacher's behalf, the Court held, is part of the essential substance of that defense right.
Applying that standard, the Court found that once A asked to appear with his attorney, or asked that his attorney be allowed to speak on his behalf, and the university refused, the defense right was not meaningfully protected. That failure was a grave procedural defect, and discipline imposed on that basis is, in principle, invalid.
Why This Case Matters, and Its Limits
This ruling is notable because the Supreme Court reached its conclusion without any statute explicitly stating that private school teachers have a right to counsel at a disciplinary hearing.
But the scope of this ruling should not be overstated. Ordinary private-sector employees are governed by the Civil Act and the Labor Standards Act, which do not contain comparable language guaranteeing a right to counsel during internal disciplinary proceedings. For that reason, this ruling does not directly establish a right to attorney presence in an ordinary company's disciplinary committee.
That said, the ruling is likely to shape how HR and labor practitioners think about disciplinary committee design going forward, even outside the education sector. A company that denies an employee's request for attorney assistance during discipline, and later faces a wrongful dismissal claim, may find a labor commission or court scrutinizing whether the process was fundamentally fair, and this ruling adds a data point suggesting Korean courts take that question seriously when real substantive rights are at stake.
For employers in Korea, particularly those handling sensitive disciplinary matters such as harassment or misconduct allegations, this case is a reminder that how a disciplinary process is run can matter as much as what it concludes.
---
This post is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. For guidance on a specific disciplinary procedure or dismissal issue in Korea, please consult qualified Korean counsel.
