법학전문대학원 평가제도의 문제점과 개선방안 - 법전원 3주기 평가를 중심으로

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

In February 2023;the Law School Evaluation Committee released the results of the third cycle of evaluations for law schools. Of the 25 law schools;13 were granted “conditional certification,” and three were classified as “temporarily non-certification.” These results represent an unprecedented affair in the administration of law school assessments under the Law School Act;with three universities currently pursuing administrative remedies in response to the evaluation outcomes.
The original intent of the evaluation system was not to penalize the educational mission of the Law School Act;which aims to foster the development of legal professionals;but rather to promote the autonomy of law schools in their educational;research;and competitive activities;from an objective and practical standpoint. However;in practice;the primary consequence of the evaluation has been the administrative imposition of disadvantages—such as administrative sanctions or obligation of re-evaluation — that diverge from the original purpose and nature of the system.
In light of these concerns;this paper provides a classification and analysis of the current evaluation framework;with a particular focus on the “Third-Cycle Evaluation of Law School.” It also offers a legal interpretation of the role of the “accrediting body,” based on the legal status and authority of the evaluation agency. This analysis seeks to clarify the legal nature of each procedural step;identify institutional shortcomings;and propose reforms for future improvements in the evaluation system.
Moreover;the paper addresses significant issues regarding the lack of objectivity and expertise in the fact-finding and decision-making processes;as well as institutional deficiencies in the composition of the evaluation committee. It also identifies operational flaws within the evaluation administration and outlines key areas for reform to enhance fairness in the evaluation process.
To establish a more effective and future-oriented evaluation framework for the fourth cycle;this paper proposes alternatives for the improvement and simplification of evaluation criteria. These include reducing evaluators' discretion;which can be influenced by vague or ambiguous standards;and implementing a comprehensive scoring system that assigns total points to each evaluation criterion.
In conclusion;this paper advocates for the development of operational and legal principles that ensure a fair and transparent evaluation process;one that upholds professionalism and objectivity in alignment with the original goals of the system. The paper particularly focuses on the practical realities of the third-cycle evaluation;in the context of competing interests from various stakeholders;including students;universities;the Korean Bar Association;the Ministry of Education;and the Ministry of Justice.