In brief
On 29 January 2026, the Korean National Assembly passed an amendment introducing statutory attorney-client privilege (ACP), granting attorneys and clients the right to protect confidential legal communications and related materials. The amendment is expected to meaningfully affect tax audits, investigations, and appeals by offering stronger protection against broad document requests and the use of privileged materials. Under the ACP regime, clients may freely discuss sensitive tax or regulatory matters with their tax lawyers while ensuring that these communications remain confidential and protected from seizure or disclosure, marking a significant shift in safeguarding taxpayers’ defense rights throughout investigative and judicial proceedings.
Background
Previously, the Korean legal system imposed a duty of confidentiality on attorneys regarding communications with their clients but did not grant them the corresponding right to protect such communications. Accordingly, during state investigations, audits, and litigation processes, concerns had been continuously raised that the constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel was not being properly upheld.
Against this backdrop, on 29 January 2026, the National Assembly passed an amendment to the Attorney‑at‑Law Act (“Act”), thereby establishing the legal basis for formally recognizing ACP as a statutory right. The amendment will undergo subsequent legislative procedures, including deliberation by the State Council and approval by the President, before being promulgated, and is scheduled to take effect one year after its promulgation.
Key provisions of the amended Act
The amendment introduces a new Article 26‑2 immediately after the existing Article 26 of the Act, which currently sets forth attorneys’ duty of confidentiality. Under this newly established provision, attorneys and their clients, or individuals seeking to become clients, are granted (1) the right not to disclose to third parties any communications exchanged for the purpose of providing or receiving legal representation or legal services, and (2) the right not to disclose any documents or materials, including those created or maintained in electronic form, that are prepared in connection with litigation, investigations, or inquiries relating to matters they have been engaged to handle.
However, the newly added provision allows exceptions to the application of ACP in certain circumstances, including where (a) the client provides explicit consent, (b) there is a conflict with significant public interest (e.g., where an attorney is involved in a client’s illegal activities, or where a client uses legal advice to commit a crime), (c) disclosure is necessary for an attorney to exercise or defend their rights in a dispute with a client, or (d) a separate statute expressly provides otherwise.
The relevant addendum of the Act stipulates that the amendment will take effect one year after its promulgation. Notwithstanding this general rule, it further provides that the newly established Article 26‑2 shall also apply to communications or materials exchanged prior to the effective date of the Act, thereby leaving open the possibility of retroactive application.
What this means for tax audits and appeals
The introduction of ACP is expected to significantly affect tax audits, investigations, and subsequent administrative and judicial appeals. Under the ACP regime, clients may freely discuss sensitive tax or regulatory matters with their tax lawyers while ensuring that these communications remain confidential and protected from seizure or disclosure.
Typically, taxpayers are often required to provide vast amounts of documents and explanations during tax audits. In particular, during dawn-raids or forensic type investigations, communications with counsel such as emails, legal opinions, and memoranda were often collected without limitation and used throughout the audit and appeals process. With the amendment formally codifying ACP, taxpayers are now expected to have an additional line of defense against excessive or overbroad document requests or collection efforts by the tax authorities, as well as against the use of privileged materials in subsequent appeals proceedings.
The ACP is further expected to function as an important safeguard to protect taxpayers’ right to defense and to ensure procedural fairness in investigative and judicial proceedings, especially for tax offense cases where tax officials are vested with search and seizure powers and the authority to conduct witness interviews similar to investigative agencies.
That said, the exact scope of ACP application remains to be seen, as the amendment does not provide detailed guidance regarding its specific scope or legal effect. In particular, the amendment does not clearly prescribe the legal consequences or available remedies in the event of a violation of ACP and also expressly lists “where a separate statue expressly stipulates otherwise” as an exception to its application. Accordingly, further legislative refinement or judicial interpretation will be needed as the framework continues to develop.
*****
Seonhye Kim, Yeo Joon Yun and Jisoo Bae, Associates, have contributed to this legal update.
© 2026 Baker McKenzie & KL Partners Joint Venture Law Firm. All rights reserved. Baker McKenzie & KL Partners Joint Venture Law Firm is a joint venture between Baker McKenzie LLP and KL Partners, established under the Foreign Legal Consultant Act of Korea and is a member firm of Baker & McKenzie International, a Swiss Verein with member law firms around the world. In accordance with the common terminology used in professional service organizations, reference to a “partner” means a person who is a partner, or equivalent, in such a law firm. Similarly, reference to an “office” means an office of any such law firm. This may qualify as “Attorney Advertising” requiring notice in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.