ABSTRACT
Introduced by Japanese imperialism, Western modernity and the modern legal system in Korea have experienced repeated fluctuations. Although there were several precursors to a modern legal system, Western laws and legal professions were mainly introduced via Japan. Japanese domination distorted the transition toward a modern legal system which had begun before colonization. The colonial lawyers legitimated imperialist domination and repressed the aspiration of Koreans for independence. Koreans gained their independence before they liquidated the colonial legacies. The Korean War, political agitations, and military dictatorship maintained a powerful state and repressed the liberty and rights of social actors. Koreans considered the law an instrument of coercive state power. As a result, judges and prosecutors closely aligned with the state were looked upon with awe and the role of private attorneys was relatively marginal. These attitudes toward the legal system have undergone rapid transformation
since the Grand Democratic Movement in 1987. The most important and remarkable changes in the Korean legal field are its internationalization and democratization. The amendment of the constitution, defense of civil rights, expulsion of military elite from power, and reforms of various institutions weakened state power and influenced the modification of traditional legal positions and professions. Consequently, the new social movement’s emphasis on lawyers’ social responsibility has developed rapidly while promoting the rule of law, public interest law, and the defense of civil and human rights. On the other hand, the neoliberal economy, which was introduced by a small number of “technopols” in the 1980s,1 has now become the mainstream, promoting deregulation policies and the internationalization of society in general. It has also promoted rapid internationalization of the legal field. These changes raised questions about the legitimacy of traditional legal professionalism and invited a global transformation of the field, including reform of the educational system and reevaluation of the material and symbolic capital possessed by the members in the field. The modification of the Korean legal field can be considered not only a result of
global and internal political changes, but also a result of the struggles of actors in the field. In particular, the importation of American legal professionalism as a global standard and strategic capital for the struggle gave new actors opportunities
to challenge the qualifications of traditional actors more closely aligned with state power and more embedded in the national space.
