The present study attempted to find a direction forward for the legal services market in an era of creative innovation by reviewing the issue of conflict between online legal services platforms such as ‘LawTalk’ and the world of legal professions. Specifically, the study extracts and takes as analysis tools similar arguments from the cases of ‘TADA’, ‘Uber’, and ‘Airbnb’ and then comparatively examines overseas cases concerning legal services platforms. The essence of the argument surrounding platforms lies in whether platform services are simply ‘network services that provide a place connecting suppliers and consumers’ or whether platforms should be viewed as providing ‘substantive services such as transportation, lodgings, and legal defense’. The European Court of Justice(ECJ) states that a platform is exempt from existing regulations if the platform service is separable from offline services but subject to regulations if the platform and offline services are combined as one to form an overall service. Accordingly, Uber’s transportation intermediary service was viewed as a transportation service in substance(subject to regulations), while Airbnb’s lodgings intermediary service was viewed as an information society service(exempt from regulations). If that’s the case, are legal service platforms like LawTalk illegal? The issue is whether the LawTalk service falls under ‘acts of connecting or mediating between an attorney and a client or referring an attorney’, prohibited by the Attorney-at-law Act. Because LawTalk is an advertising platform that receives fixed advertising rates for providing an online advertising space, it is difficult to assess its services as ‘direct acts of connection’ prohibited by the Attorney-at-law Act. Moreover, attorneys must be allowed to promote themselves to unspecified persons and entice clients by paying advertising fees, and the platform business to achieve these ends must be allowed as well. However, an advertising platform is not allowed to exploit attorneys in the process of promoting the platform itself or make the mistaken impression that it is affiliated to an attorney, nor is the platform allowed to do advertisements with attorney contacts listed, with the ad exposed across an entire page. The ECJ’s ruling is applied as a standard in addition to interpretations of current law. The fact that attorneys can use traditional methods(mediums such as newspapers, magazines, broadcasts, and computer communications) rather than LawTalk for ads and searches, the fact that LawTalk does not prescribe legal fees for attorneys or an upper limit, and the fact that it is difficult to view LawTalk as exercising direct control over the signing of delegation contracts or the quality of legal defense render LawTalk services assessed as not the referral of particular attorneys and independent from actual legal defense services. It is more than necessary to listen to the criticism that platforms inundate the market with free ads or unfair cheap ads in the process of attorneys accepting cases, threatening the market order of fair case acceptance and attorney ethics, and that increasing reliance on platforms make attorneys beholden to these platforms. However, when considering the trend of the times involving legal tech and demand on the part of legal consumers, it is not desirable to completely ban platform services on the grounds of excessively strict interpretations. Moreover, advertising platforms, as opposed to intermediary platforms, are allowed overseas. If platforms provide a place connecting attorneys and clients rather than display an appearance of subordinating attorneys using their market-dominating position, then such a business model should be allowed. At present, adequate regulations that block the adverse effects of platforms while strengthening their positive effects are necessary, along with clear guidelines.

최근 흉포화되고 증가하는 성폭력범죄에 대한 새로운 형사정책적 대응방안으로 성범죄자 신상공개제도나 전자발찌부착에 의한 전자감시 등 많은 제도들이 시행중에 있는데 그 중에서도 2010년 7월 제정된 「성폭력범죄자의 성충동약물치료에 관한 법률」(약칭 성충동약물치료법)에 의한 약물치료명령은 시행 전부터 인권침해 논란에 휩싸이는 동시에 여론영합적인 자극적 졸속입법이라는 비판을 받았으며 그 동안 위헌심판이 청구된 상태였으나 2015년 말에 헌법재판소에 의한 원칙적 합헌결정이 내려졌으므로 앞으로도 계속 시행될 것이다. 따라서 현 시점에서 현행 성충동약물치료법의 법적 정당성과 형사정책적 실효성에 대하여 다시 한번 고찰할 필요가 있다고 생각되며 동시에 문제점들을 신중하고 면밀히 검토하고 개선방안을 마련함으로써 성충동약물치료법에 대한 인권침해논란을 최대한 줄이고 이 제도가 급증하는 심각한 성폭력범죄들에 대해 효과적인 형사정책적 대응책으로 자리 잡을 수 있도록 하는 것도 하나의 과제라고 생각된다.