Welcome 2 Life episode 1. Is settlement privilege not a thing in South Korean law? If it is, then, 10 minutes in and the show has already erred in a big way.
Okay, wait. The prosecutor is right. The criminal record of the father is irrelevant and, moreover, needlessly prejudicial. A litigant is not required to accept a settlement offer (at least, not in Canadian law) and the reasons for rejecting settlement, in addition to being covered by settlement privilege, are not relevant to the legal matter before the court. Although settlement is preferable in many instances, no court will hold it against a litigant for improvidently failing to settle (at least, not on the merits of the legal dispute; a litigant who persists with a trial when an equally favourable settlement offer was made would face cost consequences in every Canadian jurisdiction – see, e.g., Ontario Rule of Civil Procedure 49.10(2) ).
Also, side note, but I’m fascinated by the fact that criminal actions in SK can be ended financially through settlement between the victim and the offender. In Canada, the victim is not a party to the proceeding and the Crown counsel would make the ultimate decision whether to proceed with the trial or not, regardless of the victim’s wishes. Of course, there are strong strategic reasons why the Crown counsel would want the victim’s cooperation in a prosecution – for instance, in the prosecution which is happening in this episode, victim testimony would be essential and the Crown would probably be unable to make a case if the victim recanted.
Okay, no. In Na-rae was not the only witness of the crime. The defendant and the victim also witnessed the crime (because, you know, they were involved in it). This is obvious stuff, writer-nim.
Why is the prosecutor making an argument during opposing counsel’s direct examination of a witness? For that matter, why is making an argument during witness testimony at all? Have these people never taken courses in procedure or in evidence?
Good luck trying to make sense of K-drama law and K-drama logic. I decided to watch for the overall story and to see how they explain the two timelines.
I think I’m just bemused my how especially bad the law in this show is. I like the story and the characters a lot though, and I’m only done the first episode. I expect this show will be a winner for me.
Okay, so a lawyer cooperating with and providing information to a police investigation into that lawyer’s client is a major conflict-of-interest that would amount to a breach of professional responsibility and such cooperation would result in yuge prejudice to the lawyer’s client. Dunno about in Korea, but in Canada this conduct would (a) probably result in serious professional penalties and (b) would violate all kinds of due process rights of the accused. Seems to me that this would rise to the level of requiring a stay of proceedings; at the very least, evidence garnered through cooperation would probably be excluded from any criminal trial via s. 24(2) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Among other things, would be a breach of lawyer professional confidentiality and privilege.
However, on closer thought, it seems to me that this might actually be more interesting and tricky issue than I am suggesting. I think almost every country creates an exception for exigent circumstances to confidentiality and conflict-of-interest rules; Lee Jae-sang could plausibly argue that, given the imminent danger to the secretary and his reasonable belief that cooperation with the police and disclosure of information within his possession pertaining to his clients might avert danger to the secretary, his actions were not censurable. I wonder, though, how the criminal trial would go and whether this sort of exigent circumstances exception would work. What Lee Jae-sang did is massively unfair to his client, but it was also the just and appropriate thing in the circumstances, given that somebody’s life was at stake and the matter was time-sensitive. Who knows!
1
0
Modal title
Modal title
Modal title
Modal title
A verification email has been sent to your new email address.
Please click the link in that email to complete the email change process.
Modal title
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit,
sed diam nonummy nibh euismod tincidunt ut laoreet dolore magna
Maq
August 13, 2019 at 4:46 PM
Welcome 2 Life episode 1. Is settlement privilege not a thing in South Korean law? If it is, then, 10 minutes in and the show has already erred in a big way.
Maq
August 13, 2019 at 5:00 PM
Okay, wait. The prosecutor is right. The criminal record of the father is irrelevant and, moreover, needlessly prejudicial. A litigant is not required to accept a settlement offer (at least, not in Canadian law) and the reasons for rejecting settlement, in addition to being covered by settlement privilege, are not relevant to the legal matter before the court. Although settlement is preferable in many instances, no court will hold it against a litigant for improvidently failing to settle (at least, not on the merits of the legal dispute; a litigant who persists with a trial when an equally favourable settlement offer was made would face cost consequences in every Canadian jurisdiction – see, e.g., Ontario Rule of Civil Procedure 49.10(2) ).
Also, side note, but I’m fascinated by the fact that criminal actions in SK can be ended financially through settlement between the victim and the offender. In Canada, the victim is not a party to the proceeding and the Crown counsel would make the ultimate decision whether to proceed with the trial or not, regardless of the victim’s wishes. Of course, there are strong strategic reasons why the Crown counsel would want the victim’s cooperation in a prosecution – for instance, in the prosecution which is happening in this episode, victim testimony would be essential and the Crown would probably be unable to make a case if the victim recanted.
Maq
August 13, 2019 at 8:19 PM
Fun fact about this, though, is that the criminal record of the accused would be admissible, at least in Canada under most circumstances.
Maq
August 13, 2019 at 5:32 PM
Okay, no. In Na-rae was not the only witness of the crime. The defendant and the victim also witnessed the crime (because, you know, they were involved in it). This is obvious stuff, writer-nim.
Maq
August 13, 2019 at 5:41 PM
Comment was deleted
Maq
August 13, 2019 at 5:42 PM
Why is the prosecutor making an argument during opposing counsel’s direct examination of a witness? For that matter, why is making an argument during witness testimony at all? Have these people never taken courses in procedure or in evidence?
mugyuljoie is preciousss
August 13, 2019 at 8:23 PM
Good luck trying to make sense of K-drama law and K-drama logic. I decided to watch for the overall story and to see how they explain the two timelines.
Maq
August 13, 2019 at 8:37 PM
I think I’m just bemused my how especially bad the law in this show is. I like the story and the characters a lot though, and I’m only done the first episode. I expect this show will be a winner for me.
Maq
August 13, 2019 at 9:04 PM
Okay, so a lawyer cooperating with and providing information to a police investigation into that lawyer’s client is a major conflict-of-interest that would amount to a breach of professional responsibility and such cooperation would result in yuge prejudice to the lawyer’s client. Dunno about in Korea, but in Canada this conduct would (a) probably result in serious professional penalties and (b) would violate all kinds of due process rights of the accused. Seems to me that this would rise to the level of requiring a stay of proceedings; at the very least, evidence garnered through cooperation would probably be excluded from any criminal trial via s. 24(2) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Maq
August 13, 2019 at 9:11 PM
Among other things, would be a breach of lawyer professional confidentiality and privilege.
However, on closer thought, it seems to me that this might actually be more interesting and tricky issue than I am suggesting. I think almost every country creates an exception for exigent circumstances to confidentiality and conflict-of-interest rules; Lee Jae-sang could plausibly argue that, given the imminent danger to the secretary and his reasonable belief that cooperation with the police and disclosure of information within his possession pertaining to his clients might avert danger to the secretary, his actions were not censurable. I wonder, though, how the criminal trial would go and whether this sort of exigent circumstances exception would work. What Lee Jae-sang did is massively unfair to his client, but it was also the just and appropriate thing in the circumstances, given that somebody’s life was at stake and the matter was time-sensitive. Who knows!