Former police officer forced into retirement after losing right to appeal

Court rejects claim over reduced retirement pay, pension

A court has ruled that a lawyer and his law firm must pay 20 million won ($14,900) in damages to a former police officer who lost his chance to appeal after the attorney failed to file an appellate brief, allowing the original ruling to become final.

According to Yonhap on Wednesday, the Busan District Court's sixth civil division, presided over by Judge Lee Sang-yoon, ruled on the case that day. The lawsuit, filed by the former officer, identified as A, targeted his attorney, identified as B, and B's law firm. "The defendants shall jointly pay the plaintiff 20 million won," the court said.

A, who was serving as a police officer at the time, was found by fellow officers around 2:57 a.m. on Sept. 2, 2023, asleep and intoxicated in the driver's seat of a car parked on a road in Gangseo-gu, Busan.

A refused a breath test and, facing an investigation over the incident, hired B's law firm in November of that year. During the trial, A's side argued that the police's voluntary accompaniment and breath-test procedures had not been lawful, but the court rejected the argument.

The Busan District Court's western branch sentenced A on July 17, 2024, to one year and six months in prison, suspended for three years. Immediately after the ruling, A asked B to file an appeal, but B did not do so. A week later, on July 24, the first-instance ruling became final, and A was automatically discharged under the Police Officers Act.

Under the Public Officials Pension Act, A's retirement allowance and retirement benefits were also reduced. In response, A filed a damages lawsuit, arguing that his lawyer had not only failed to file the appeal but had also failed to argue for a reduced sentence as a fallback in case the not-guilty argument failed at the first trial.

A sought a total of 543.26 million won in damages, comprising about 40 million won for the reduction in his retirement allowance, about 450 million won for the reduction in his pension, and 50 million won in consolation money.

The court first found that B's decision to focus on the not-guilty argument at the first trial, rather than also arguing for a reduced sentence, did not exceed the reasonable discretion expected of a lawyer.

However, the court found that failing to file the appeal was a clear breach of the duty of care. "Even by the standards expected of an ordinary lawyer, this fell short of the required duty of care," the court said. "As a result, A was deprived of his right to have the first-instance ruling reviewed again by an appellate court."

The court rejected A's claim that the lawyer should also be held liable for the reductions in his retirement allowance and pension.

The court said that to establish such liability, it would need to be proven that a timely appeal would have resulted in a second-instance sentence lighter than imprisonment without labor. That sentence would not have triggered the pension reduction. It found that the evidence A submitted was not enough to prove this.

However, the court acknowledged the emotional distress caused by the lawyer's error, which entirely deprived A of the opportunity to be tried on appeal and, potentially, before the Supreme Court.

"The right to a trial is a fundamental right recognized under the Constitution," the court said. "Considering that the lawyer could have met the appeal deadline with only a little more care, as well as the possibility that the first-instance ruling could have been changed on appeal, we set the consolation money at 20 million won."


woo@heraldcorp.com