Will AI Replace Legal Jobs in South Korea? Here’s What to Do in 2025

Will AI replace legal jobs in South Korea? The AI Framework Act - promulgated 21 January 2025 and taking effect 22 January 2026 - signals that AI will reshape legal practice more than it will erase it: the law targets

high‑impact

systems (healthcare, energy, public services), mandates transparency and labeling for generative AI, and gives the MSIT and PIPC overlapping oversight, so lawyers will spend more time on compliance, impact assessments, domestic‑representative rules and data‑privacy alignment rather than pure courtroom arguing; see a clear explainer at the FPF summary of the Act for key deadlines and obligations.

At the same time the legislation promotes AI infrastructure and SME support, so legal teams advising businesses will need practical AI skills - for prompts, risk mapping and vendor checks - skills taught in Nucamp AI Essentials for Work bootcamp (15 weeks, syllabus and registration).

That single visible change - mandatory

AI‑generated

labeling - already makes advising on disclosure, client consent and IP a daily task for Korean lawyers in 2025.

South Korea's new AI Framework Act centralizes a one‑year countdown - promulgated 21 January 2025 and taking effect 22 January 2026 - so firms must move fast to classify systems, meet transparency rules and map oversight between the Ministry of Science and ICT (MSIT) and the Personal Information Protection Commission (PIPC); the law targets “high‑impact” AI in sectors like healthcare, energy and public services, requires clear labeling for generative AI outputs, and reaches extraterritorially to cover services that affect Korean users.

Key operational hooks - computational thresholds, revenue/user triggers for a required domestic representative, and detailed high‑impact criteria - will come via Presidential Decree, while MSIT gains inspection and enforcement powers and penalties are relatively moderate (up to KRW 30 million).

The Act pairs regulatory guardrails with active state support for AI data centers and SME-friendly standardization, so legal teams advising Korean clients must balance disclosure, impact assessments and vendor checks; see the concise FPF explainer and OneTrust's preparedness checklist for practical next steps.

AI: an electronic implementation of human intellectual abilities (learning, reasoning, perception, judgment, language comprehension)

AI is already moving from pilot projects into daily practice across Korea's courts and firms: generative tools like Law&Company's SuperLawyer speed legal research and first drafts (one demo even showed a fraud complaint produced in ~25 seconds), while national systems - KICS for criminal justice and a next‑generation e‑litigation portal - are automating case searches, summaries and document submission to reshape prosecutors' and judges' workflows; see the deep country overview in Chambers' Artificial Intelligence 2025 - South Korea for the regulatory and judicial context.

Startups have coupled Retrieval‑Augmented Generation, citation checkers and fact‑checker layers to reduce hallucinations and keep outputs verifiable, and enterprise deployments emphasize on‑premise or firm‑scoped models to protect confidential client data.

These changes cut routine drafting time dramatically, free senior lawyers for higher‑value strategy, and spark real questions about how junior lawyers will learn core skills as practice shifts; for a compact case study of rapid uptake and measurable impact, review Law&Company's performance and Anthropic's SuperLawyer implementation notes.

“Tasks that used to take 3 hours to 2 days now take minutes, allowing me to devote more time to high‑priority tasks.”

AI in 2025 is reshaping which legal jobs are vulnerable and which will be in demand in South Korea: routine, repeatable work that once trained new lawyers - document review, first‑draft pleadings, and market‑research style tasks - faces automation, echoing the World Economic Forum's warning that entry‑level roles are most at risk and coinciding with a steep recent drop in Korean youth employment; World Economic Forum analysis on AI and entry-level roles.

At the same time, the AI Framework Act and related PIPC focus areas create clear growth opportunities for counsel who can build and certify risk‑management systems, serve as domestic representatives, run AI impact assessments, and defend clients on transparency and privacy questions (high‑impact sectors include healthcare, energy and finance); for a concise legal overview, consult the Future of Privacy Forum explainer on Korea's AI law.

The net effect: fewer hours spent on repetitive drafting and more demand for specialists who translate regulatory thresholds into contracts, vendor checks, labeling practice and remedial governance - a shift as palpable as losing the traditional

apprenticeship

pile of first drafts but gaining strategic, compliance‑first careers advising firms and public‑sector clients.

Practical step 1 is a fast, forensic audit: inventory every AI tool, model and dataset, then map how data flows between systems, vendors and users so the firm can classify each asset under Korea's AI Basic Act (high‑impact, generative, compute‑threshold) and the PIPC guidance - start by treating your model list like a ship's manifest at Incheon port so nothing slips past compliance.

Prioritise: (1) a model inventory and vendor register; (2) a preliminary risk check to flag high‑impact uses (hiring, healthcare, finance, critical infrastructure) and generative outputs that require labeling; (3) privacy and pseudonymization gaps per PIPC guidance; (4) whether a domestic representative is needed under the Act; and (5) model cards, impact assessments and human‑oversight plans so evidence is audit‑ready.

Use practical playbooks - see IAPP's South Korea overview for scope and definitions, OneTrust's implementation guide for operational checklists, and Nemko's four‑stage privacy framework for lifecycle controls - to convert the audit into a prioritized remediation roadmap (noncompliance risks include orders to suspend and fines up to KRW 30 million).

“…The ability of LLMs (large language models) to be able to help us sift through evidence and synthesise it and give us a composite document summarising the evidence is potentially a huge game changer,”

Practical step 2 is to translate the audit into a formal, inspection‑ready governance and compliance program that maps directly to Korea's new obligations: establish a documented risk‑management system for any model that exceeds prescribed thresholds (Article 32), codify safety and human‑oversight procedures for high‑impact uses (Article 34), and embed generative‑AI labeling and prior‑notice workflows tied to the Act's transparency rules (Article 31); MSIT's three‑pillar strategy - technology, system, ethics - offers concrete action plans and templates to make those policies operational across development, testing and deployment.

Build an AI accountability stack: an executive owner, an AI ethics or governance committee, published model cards/impact assessments, vendor‑review playbooks and a domestic‑representative protocol for offshore providers; these pieces matter because MSIT can conduct on‑site investigations and compel records, and noncompliance risks corrective orders and fines up to KRW 30 million.

Make the program auditable by default - one tablet with clear logs, impact assessments and human‑in‑the‑loop evidence should let an inspector see compliance in ten minutes rather than trigger a week‑long inquiry.

For templates and the legal framing, consult MSIT's trustworthy‑AI strategy and the Future of Privacy Forum's concise AI Framework Act explainer.

"We consider the passage of the Basic Act on Artificial Intelligence in the National Assembly to be highly significant as it will lay the foundation for strengthening the country's AI competitiveness."

Practical step 3 is a defensive playbook: shore up client confidentiality and IP by treating personal and proprietary inputs as regulated assets - map and classify client data, require explicit consent and detailed notices for any third‑party or cross‑border transfer, and bake strict clauses into vendor and AI‑service contracts (including a domestic‑agent requirement where applicable).

Appoint a Chief Privacy Officer and operational leads, apply technical controls (encryption, access‑controls, logged audits and retention policies) and run DPIAs/model cards for any systems that use client material so evidence of oversight is audit‑ready.

Move contractual and operational checks earlier in procurement - require proof of protections (ISMS‑P, pseudonymisation, on‑prem or segregated environments) and clear breach‑response roles - because under PIPA firms must notify affected data subjects quickly and regulators expect timely records: breach notices to subjects are required within 72 hours and unlawful third‑party transfers can attract criminal sanctions.

For legal framing and transfer rules, consult the DLA Piper South Korea data protection summary and the Chambers Data Protection & Privacy 2025 - South Korea guide for practical clauses and regulator expectations.

Practical step 4 is a people-first play: reshape lawyer training so every practitioner learns prompt engineering, model cards, impact assessments and the governance tasks the AI Framework Act makes routine - think short, focused learning (not a year of lectures) that pairs legal judgment with hands‑on AI practice.

South Korea's law and MSIT support signal that firms should combine proven short courses (Berkeley Law's Generative AI for the Legal Profession course is a compact, online option with optional “jam” sessions and under‑5‑hour self‑paced content) with practical tool training and in‑firm simulations that rehearse labeling, human‑in‑the‑loop review and domestic‑representative scenarios; see the FPF explainer: South Korea's AI Framework Act for the Act's training and specialist‑personnel expectations and Nucamp AI Essentials for Work - Top 10 AI Tools for Korean Lawyers.

A practical regimen: brief vendor‑specific workshops, weekly prompt‑engineering labs, mandatory impact‑assessment drills for high‑impact use cases, and a certificate pathway so compliance teams can show inspectors an auditable learning record - small investments that turn a pile of printed precedents into a single, searchable model card and keep firms ready for MSIT/PIPC checks.

South Korea's AI Basic Act isn't just a compliance headache - it's a commercial opening for firms that package risk, governance and infrastructure into sellable services: expect demand for fast AI audits and risk‑management playbooks (short‑term tasks flagged in the Pandectes readiness guide), retained domestic‑representative and local‑counsel offerings for foreign providers, and turnkey labeling/impact‑assessment services that help clients win government and enterprise procurement where verified solutions are prioritised; Centraleyes explains how early compliance becomes a market advantage rather than just a penalty‑avoidance tactic.

Managed‑deployment and on‑premise model services that protect client data will command a premium in finance and healthcare, while advisory practices that stitch together model cards, human‑oversight plans and MSIT/PIPC‑ready documentation can turn one‑off audits into recurring retainers.

Public investment (including the National AI Computing Centre and other infrastructure programmes) and tax/financing incentives create partnership pathways with government and startups, so firms that build compliance + implementation bundles can capture work across procurement, certification and ongoing monitoring - think of an auditable impact assessment as the new entry ticket to Korea's biggest AI contracts.

For practical checklists and timelines, firms should review the Centraleyes compliance breakdown and the Nemko overview of Korea's rollout.

Opportunity - Why it matters (research‑backed):
• AI audits & risk‑management services - Short‑term actions include internal audits and readiness checks (Pandectes)
• Domestic representative / local counsel - Required for foreign operators crossing thresholds; aids MSIT reporting and inspections (Centraleyes)
• Impact assessments & certification support - Priority in government and enterprise procurement for verified/assessed solutions (Chambers / Centraleyes)
• Managed on‑prem / data‑protection deployments - High‑impact sectors (healthcare, finance) need confidentiality and PIPA alignment (AI guides)
• Infrastructure partnerships - National AI computing investments and incentives create project work and collaboration routes (Nemko)

Preparing for enforcement and litigation in South Korea means treating compliance as litigation‑grade evidence work: the Ministry of Science and ICT (MSIT) has clear investigatory powers - on‑site inspections, compelled document production and corrective or suspension orders under the AI Framework Act - while the Personal Information Protection Commission (PIPC) may bring overlapping data‑protection scrutiny under PIPA, so dual‑track exposure is real and fast (the Act takes effect 22 January 2026).

Practical risks include administrative fines (up to KRW 30 million under the AI Act) and separate sanctioning under PIPA amendments (recently cited up to KRW 20 million for domestic‑representative breaches), plus reputational and procurement consequences if impact assessments and labeling are missing; see the concise FPF explainer on the Act for the enforcement hooks and Centraleyes' summary for a compliance playbook.

In practice, an MSIT inspector can turn a model card, server log or vendor contract into decisive evidence overnight, so preserve audit trails, stage defensible impact assessments, confirm domestic‑representative status where thresholds apply, and be ready to produce human‑oversight records if litigation or enforcement follows.

South Korea's one‑year runway before the AI Framework Act takes full effect on 22 January 2026 makes this simple: act now, document everything, and make your firm inspection‑ready.

Month 0–3: run a forensic model & vendor inventory and classify high‑impact and generative uses (remember the law's extraterritorial reach and domestic‑representative triggers); Month 3–6: codify a risk‑management system, generative‑AI labeling and human‑oversight procedures, and name an executive owner so records are auditable; Month 6–9: tighten contracts, run DPIAs/model cards, lock down encryption and access controls, and insert domestic‑agent clauses where needed to protect client confidentiality and IP; Month 9–12: rehearse impact‑assessment drills, run vendor workshops and prompt‑engineering labs, publish a ten‑minute inspection pack and convert audits into recurring retainers.

Keep MSIT and PIPC guidance in your toolkit, review the clear explainer at the Future of Privacy Forum for regulatory highlights, and note penalties (administrative fines up to KRW 30 million) - practical training such as Nucamp AI Essentials for Work bootcamp (15 weeks) can fast‑track prompt, governance and tool skills so an auditable impact assessment becomes the new entry ticket to Korea's biggest AI contracts.