2010년-2018년 법조윤리시험 분석과 발전방향

김미라 ( Kim Mi-ra ) 경상대학교 법학연구소 2019 法學硏究 Vol.27 No.3

법학전문대학원의 법조윤리 과목은 학생들로 하여금 법조인으로서의 기본적 윤리관을 심어주고 장래 법조인으로서 활동할 때 밑거름이 되어 줄 핵심적인 윤리기준을 갖게 해주는 것을 목표로 삼아야 한다. 그러므로 법조윤리시험은 직업윤리에 관한 기본적 소양을 측정하는 수준에서 출제되어야 한다. 이 글은 2010년부터 2018년까지 9회에 걸쳐 실시된 법조윤리시험에서 출제된 문제를 대상으로 문제의 내용과 수준이 법조윤리 교육목표에 부합하는지 분석하고 나아갈 방향을 제시하기 위하여 쓰여 졌다. 법조윤리시험의 합격률은 최고 99.43%, 최저 59.39%로서 40%가 넘는 편차에 매년 들쑥날쑥한 수치를 보였다. 이는 법무부가 일관된 난이도에 대한 기준 없이 전년도 합격률을 높이고 낮추는 데만 급급한데서 기인한 것으로 보인다. 영역별 출제비율은 변호사 영역이 95%에 달하고, 그 중에서도 수임제한 영역에서 가장 많은 문제가 출제되었다. 유형별 출제비율은 규정근거형이 60%를 넘는 비율을 보이고 있다. 법학전문대학원 교육의 초점이 변호사의 양성에 있고, 변호사법이나 변호사윤리 장전과 같은 주요 규정에 대한 이해가 필요하다는 점에서 이러한 출제 경향은 타당하다. 그런데 변별력의 확보라는 미명하에 시행령이나 형사소송법 등을 알아야만 풀 수 있는 문제, 지엽적인 판례에 편중된 문제, 법조윤리협의회나 변호사회에 대한 문제처럼 시스템에 관한 문제, 지나치게 세부적인 절차나 내용에 관한 문제 등 기본적ㆍ핵심적 윤리와는 동떨어지거나 관련없는 문제가 많이 출제되고 있다. 이러한 출제경향은 법조윤리를 암기 과목처럼 만들어 시험에 대한 부담을 가중시키고 있다. 변호사시험은 직업윤리에 관한 기본적 소양을 측정하는 법조윤리시험과 민사법ㆍ형사법ㆍ공법 등 전문적 법률지식을 요구하는 시험으로 2단계로 나뉘어 실시되고 있다. 이 시험은 합격을 위하여 만점의 70%가 요구되므로 예측가능한 난이도가 필수적이고, 그 예측은 지속적ㆍ안정적이어야 한다. 문제 내용과 수준은 직업윤리에 관한 기본적 소양 측정에 부합하도록 출제되어야 한다. 출제영역과 법령 등 규정은 공시된 범위 내에서만 출제되어야 하고, 법조인의 윤리와 직접 관련 있는 내용이어야 하며 기본적이고 핵심적인 것이어야 한다. 판례도 법조인의 윤리에 관한 일반적이고도 중요한 의미가 있는 것만 출제되어야 한다. 즉, 지금보다 출제범위는 더 줄어야 하고 난이도는 더 낮아져야 한다. 문제가 어렵고 복잡하다고 하여 윤리의식이 올라가는 것은 아니기 때문이다. 설령 합격률이 100%라고 하더라도 무슨 문제가 있겠는가. Law schools' legal ethics courses should aim at implanting basic ethics belief as a lawyer in students and ensuring that the students have a core ethical standard that will become the foundation for their future activities as a lawyer. Therefore, the legal ethics examinations should set questions at the level of measuring the basic knowledge regarding the professional ethics. This article was written with a view to analyzing the contents and levels of the questions set in the legal ethics examinations conducted nine times from 2010 to 2018 to see whether the questions coincide with the goal of legal ethics education, and presenting the direction for the questions to go. The acceptance rates of legal ethics examinations showed values fluctuating every year with the maximum variation exceeding 40% as the highest value was 99.43% and the lowest value was 59.39%. This seems to be attributed to the effort to correct abnormal acceptance rates only based on the acceptance rate in the previous year without setting a coherent level of difficulty. As for the ratios of exam questions set by field, the ratio of questions in the field of lawyers reached 95%, and among them, the largest number of questions were set in the field of restriction on the acceptance of delegation. As for the ratios of exam questions set by type, the ratio of applicable provision (provision presentation) type questions showed a ratio more than 60%. I am favorable to the tendency of questions as such in that the focus of education at law schools is on the cultivation of attorneys, and attorneys should understand major provisions such as the provisions of the Attorney-at-Law Act and the Ethic Code for Attorneys. However, under the guise of securing the discrimination capacity, questions that are far away from or unrelated to basic and core ethics such as questions that can be solved only when the enforcement ordinance or the Criminal Procedure Act is known, questions regarding the system including questions regarding the Legal Ethics and Professional Conduct Council or the Korean Bar Association, and questions regarding excessively detailed procedures or contents are frequently set. The tendency of setting questions as such is making the legal ethics like a memoriter course thereby increasing the burden of the examination. Each lawyer examination is administered in two separate stages; a legal ethics examination to measure the basic knowledge of the professional ethics, and an examination that requires professional legal knowledge such as knowledge of civil, criminal, and public laws. Since the legal ethics examination requires 70% of the full score to pass, a predictable level of difficulty is essential, and the prediction should be continuous and stable. The content and level of the questions set should be suitable for the measurement of basic knowledge of the professional ethics. The questions should be set within the announced range of fields and laws, and the contents of the questions should be directly related to the ethics of lawyers, and should be basic and core. The questions set in relation to case laws should be limited to those that have general and important meanings in relation to he ethics of lawyers. That is, the range of possible questions should be narrower than that of now and the level of difficulty should be lower than that of now because difficult and complicated questions do not improve the sense of ethics. Even if the acceptance rate is 100%, there should be no problem.

법학전문대학원에서의 이론교육과 실무교육의 조화 및 변호사시험

김동호 대한변호사협회 2010 人權과 正義 : 大韓辯護士協會誌 Vol.- No.406

1. 법학전문대학원에서의 이론교육과 실무교육의 조화법과대학이나 법학전문대학원이나 법학이 실용학문에 속하는 이상 실무지향적이어야 했다. 일반적으로 과거 법학을 수료한 학생들은 간단한 소장도 작성할 수 없었다. 이러한 실무교육의 부재는 마땅히 비난받아야 한다. 이러한 관점에서, 과거의 법률교육은 강단법학을 면하지 못했다. 교육내용이나 교육방법은 실용적인고려 없이 채용되었다. 이는 학생들의 수요가 무시되고 교육 공급자로서의 교수들의 여건과 생각이 절대적인 영향을 미친 결과였다. 때로는 실용적이지 못한 주제들을 다루면서 한 학기의 대부분을 보내버리기도 했다. 학생들은 단지 이론교과서를 읽는 것만으로 교수의 설명을 듣지 않더라도 법률개념과 법률이론을 충분히 이해할 수 있을 것이라는 사고가 지금 법학전문대학원 시대에 있어서도 남아 있는 것으로 생각된다. 이제는 법학전문대학원의 교육과정과 변호사시험제도가 실무교육을 요구하고 있다. 더욱이 과목간의 융합적 교육이 요구되고 있고, 실무가 출신 교수들이 현저히 많아졌다. 따라서 교육과정과 교육방법은, 3년이라는 짧은 교육기간 내에, 법률전문가에 요구되는 최소한의 수준으로 일반적인 법률이론에 관한능력뿐만 아니라 법률전문가로서의 능력까지도 습득되도록 확보되어야 한다. 그러나 우리는 미국 로스쿨의 것들을 무비판적으로 수입함으로써 우리의 전통적인 것들을 바꾸어 버리는 일이 있어서는 안 된다. 법률이론 과목에 있어서 사례와 판례가 교육내용으로 사용되고 문답식 방법이 교육방법으로 채택되는 것이 대표적으로 잘못된 예가 아닌가 생각하고 있다. 몇 가지 이유로, 그러한 것들은 우리의 법률이론 과목에는 적합하지 않다. 법률이론 과목에 있어서 미국 로스쿨에서의 교육내용과 방법들은 부수적으로 고려되면 충분하다. 사례와 판례는 강의의 효율을 높이기 위한 목적을 위하여서 적당한 정도로만 사용되어야 한다. 문답식 방법은 우리나라 법의 원리와 체계를 이해하는 데에는 효과적이지 못하다. 강의실 내에서의 이론교육은 교과서나 법조문들을 읽는 것만으로는 이해할 수 없는 것들을 선별하여 학생들로 하여금 그것을 이해시키는 데에 활용되어야 한다. 3년이라는 짧은 기간 내에 기본적인 법률과목의 기본적인 지식이 습득되려면, 법률이론 교과서는 볼륨이 적고 체계성을 갖추도록 학생들 편익의 관점에서 재작성되어야 한다. 2. 변호사시험제도변호사시험제도는 법학전문대학원의 교육에 직접적인 영향을 미친다. 현재 변호사시험을 주관하는 당국자들은 실무능력을 강조하고 있고, 그러한 방향설정은 옳다. 특히 논술시험에 있어서 기록형 문제를 모든 기본법 분야에 설정해 놓은 매우 놀랍고도 바람직한 것이다. 그러나 여기에는 실무가 출신 교수들과 법률실무가들의 적극적이고 희생적인 기여가 전제되어 있다. 선택과목 시험이 논술형으로 된 것은 이해할 수 없다. 변호사시험 과목에 그것을 포함한 것에 대하여 비판적으로 볼 때에는 더욱 그렇다. 선택과목의 시험은 과거 사법시험 제도에 있어서와 같이 선택형시험으로 지속하거나 그렇지 않으면 변호사시험 과목에서 아예 배제하는 것이 바람직하였다고 생각한다. 한편, 변호사시험에 관한 정보제공에 있어서는, 변호사 자격시험으로서의 시험 성격, 법학전문대학원의 목적 및 과거 사법시험 제도의 반성을 ... 1. Educational theory and practice of law for the harmony at Korean law-schools The law faculty belong to practical study, it had to be practice-oriented either at law-college or law schools in our country. Generally, a law student did not create a simple civil complaint in the past. This lack of practical training is to blame. As far as this point, the original law education should not be an entirely legal pulpit. In choosing a topic or teaching method, practical considerations were not oriented. These results grew out of the fact that students’ demands were ignored and out of the fact that the circumstances and thoughts of professors as the providers were absolutely influencing. With impractical subjects, sometimes they spent most of one semester. Now even in the time of law school, I think, it is residual the thought that the law students can understand the legal concepts and the legal theories enough, only by reading the legal text books, without legal professors’ explaining. Now the law school courses and the bar examination system are requiring practical training in our country. Moreover, the congruous education are required between each subjects, and the practice-experienced professors become remarkable. Thus, the curriculum and teaching methods must be equiped and improved enough, to achieve not only the legal capacity of general theory as well as legal expertise, at the minimum level required for legal experts, within a short period of three years. But we should not import uncritically the things of American law schools to change our traditional things that should not be changed. The typically wrong examples are just the trend that cases or precedents are chosen as contents and that the Socratic method is chosen as the method, at the legal education of theoretical subjects. I am thinking so. Pointed out above, due to several reasons, those do not fit the our legal education of theoretical subjects. Those are only the secondary ones at the legal education of theoretical subjects. Cases and precedents should be used by the appropriate level, for the purpose of improving the efficiency of the lecture. The Socratic method can not be an effective way to understand the principles and system of our laws. The theoretical education in the classroom has to be utilized to make students understand the selected things that could not be understood only by reading textbooks or provisions. Within a shorter period of 3 years, basic knowledge of basic legal subjects to be learned, the text book of legal theory should be reorganized for the benefits of students by reducing the volume and by enhancing systematical character. 2. Korean bar examination system The bar examination system directly affects the education in law schools. Now the authorities of bar-examination placed emphasis on the working skills, and that is the right direction. Especially, it is significant and desirable very much that the records type essay-exam are set for all of the basic law subjects. But here is the premise of the active contribution and sacrifice of the practice-experienced professors and the practicing lawyers.It cannot be understandable that the testing way of electives is essay type. Considering the criticism of including that in bar examination subjects, it is more so. It is desirable, I think, that selection-type-test of electives should be kept as in the past bar examination system, otherwise, electives should be excluded from the bar examination. Meanwhile, in providing information about the bar examination, when I synthesize the examination’s nature as the qualification test of a lawyer, the purposes of korean law school and the reflection of past bar exam system, and when I interpret the Korean Bar examination law §18②, finally I can make sure that the informations about the grades or rankings of individual subjects and about the overall position is to provide not for the passed but for the non-passed.

법학전문대학원에서의 법조윤리 교육의 실태와 개선방향

최단비(Choi Dan Bie) 원광대학교 법학연구소 2014 圓光法學 Vol.30 No.2

The method of selecting attorneys in Korea is changed from bar exam to Law school in 2009. Under the act on the establishment and management of professional Law schools, legal ethics is adopted as one of the required courses for the exam to be attorneys. Because there is no course that is legal ethics under bar exam system, reviewing the state and how performs the education of legal ethics in Law school is important at this stage which is after 5 years from starting the Law school system. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to look behind the education of legal ethics in Law school for 5 years and review the problems of the education of legal ethics. Afterwards the purpose of this paper is to provide the solution for the problems of legal ethics in Law school at this stage. In addition, Refering the study about education of legal ethics in Japan Las school which has been started 5 years ahead of us in 2004 such as how performs the education of legal ethics and which problems indicate is helpful. Therefore this paper compare the education of legal ethics in Korea Law school with Japan such as the state of education of legal ethics, which curriculum time is best, qualification of professor for legal ethics, range of education, teaching method and curriculum. Through these comparative and review, this paper point out problems of current education of legal ethics such as education level which enumerate the articles of Attorney At Law Act under the circumstances that the test type is only optional and the goal of education is preparing for the test of legal ethics by Ministry of Justice. After this pointing out, this paper provide the new teachig method such as performing the deepen learning by expressing students' own view through report and/or discussion and investing time for specific theme for deepen learning.

법조윤리의 교육과 시험 : 한국과 미국의 비교법적 고찰

김재원(Kim, Jae-Won) 성균관대학교 법학연구소 2010 성균관법학 Vol.22 No.3

After South Korea adopted a new law school system, which modeled after the U.S. law school, all students who aspire to be a lawyer must take a course on legal ethics and pass the national legal ethics exam. There had been no teaching and testing on legal ethics at university law departments before. There thus existed very few law professors who could teach this subject competently. The purpose of this paper is to provide those inexperienced teachers with some practical guidance to improve their abilities to teach and make them familiar with the new national examination. Based on a comparative law approach, this paper surveys the U.S. legal ethics rules and the testing scheme. It follows similar study on the historical development of the Code of Legal Ethics both in South Korea and the U.S. This paper also discusses the proper name of the subject. It suggests in this regard the preference of using "Law Governing Lawyers," instead of the traditional usage of "legal ethics." The paper continues to deal with the goals and ideal contents of a legal ethics course. The calling of legal profession serving for the realization of social justice and the protection of human rights should not be overlooked or discounted in any circumstances. This paper also emphasizes the maintenance of proper balance between the professional and private life, paying more attention to the quality of each lawyer's life.

법학전문대학원에서의 법조윤리 교육방법

한인달 ( In Dal Han ) 법과사회이론학회 2008 법과 사회 Vol.0 No.35

일본에서의 법조양성의 현황과 과제 - 우리나라의 법조양성개혁에 주는 시사점은? -

양만식 ( Man Sig Yang ) 단국대학교 법학연구소 2015 법학논총 Vol.39 No.3

If we look at the several problems of the Japanese law school system, it is easy to see a tough road ahead for the system. The system has revealed problems since its introduction and the countermeasures considered cannot be a fundamental solution. It is obviously not a successful system at all. Presently the social structure has become more complicated and diversified as well as globalized. Accordingly, Reforms have been on going in diverse areas in order to boost the national economy and the judicial role is certainly changing too. There is no need to say that the jurisdiction must be suitable for the change of a new era and fulfill its purpose so that we can live a secure life in a free and level playing society. In light of this, South Korea carried out the reform of the judicial system and introduced the law school system as an institution that plays an important role in nurturing legal professionals. It has been 7 years since the implementation of the law school system, and now is time to check if the system functions properly.