Korean Constitutional Court Upholds Bar Exam Limit Despite Pregnancy Rights Debate

A recent ruling by the Constitutional Court has upheld a law that fails to recognise pregnancy and childbirth as exceptions to the strict time limits of the bar examination. Despite a divided court, the current regulations remain in place, meaning candidates who experience pregnancy and childbirth are not granted additional time to complete their professional licensing.

The Physical and Mental Toll of Maternal Transition

Five of the court’s justices emphasized the severe physical and mental burdens that accompany pregnancy and childbirth. They specifically cited morning sickness, hormone changes and the pain of delivery as factors that prevent candidates from preparing for the exam under normal conditions.

The court noted that these health challenges are often compounded by the stress of impending deadlines. This creates a systemic environment where women may feel forced to choose between their reproductive health and their professional aspirations.

A Legal Stalemate Over Motherhood

The ruling resulted from a 4-to-5 split. While five justices argued that the law violates the freedom to choose a profession and ignores the state’s duty to protect motherhood, the final decision was “constitutional” because the required quorum of six justices for a “constitutional nonconformity” ruling was not met.

The four justices who supported the law argued that creating various exceptions would be difficult to legislate uniformly. They expressed concern that expanding exceptions could undermine the fairness and reliability of the examination system.

The Human Cost of the ‘Five-Year Limit’

The real-world consequences of this law are illustrated by the case of Kim Nuri. After graduating from law school and failing the exam, Kim gave birth to two children, but eventually became an “O-tal-ja”—a term for those who have exhausted their five attempts within the five-year limit.

Currently, the only exception to the five-year limit is the period spent fulfilling military service obligations. This disparity led petitioners to argue that the current law infringes upon their right to equality.

Possible Future Developments

While the court upheld the law, the increasing number of justices voicing concern—growing to five in this instance—suggests a shifting judicial perspective. This could potentially lead to future challenges or a eventual ruling of unconstitutionality if more justices align.

the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission recommended in December of last year that the Ministry of Justice amend the law. Such an amendment could potentially exclude one year from the five-year limit for those who give birth to children.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the current limit for taking the bar exam?
Candidates must pass the exam within five years of obtaining their law school degree, with a maximum of five attempts allowed.

Why did the law remain constitutional despite five judges disagreeing?
A “constitutional nonconformity” ruling requires a quorum of at least six justices; since only five voted for it, the law was upheld.

What health factors did the dissenting justices highlight?
They pointed to the physical and mental burdens of pregnancy and childbirth, specifically mentioning hormone changes, morning sickness, and the pain of delivery.

Do you believe professional licensing timelines should be adjusted to accommodate maternal health and childbirth?