Pro Bono

Pro Bono vs. Lazy Critics: Guess Who Wins?

Pro Bono isn’t controversial, your privilege is. Some bubble dwellers voluntarily watched a legal drama (just 4 eps) and thought the biggest crime was queer representation or women’s autonomy. Spoiler: the only crime here is your complete lack of critical thinking. (You can find my criticism concerning this show at the end. This review only discusses first four episodes and the bad faith comments about them.)

“Too woke”
Okay, let’s unpack this embarrassing ‘hot take.’ You’re voluntarily watching a LAW drama, a genre literally about justice, society, and real life conflicts and your main critique is ‘too woke’? This show addresses teen pregnancy, anti abortion coercion, and queer rights (in first 4 eps). If that bothers you, maybe basic human rights just aren’t your thing….own it and move on.

“Pushing your agenda”
Calling women’s autonomy or queer existence an “agenda” is a rhetorical trick.
It reframes freedom as threat so that control looks like morality. Abortion as a personal vs. imposed choice. You completely ignore the distinction between personal belief and enforcing that belief on others. A religion can inform personal choices, but trying to force a fully grown woman/teen to carry a pregnancy against her will is coercion, not morality. Claiming this as “moral correctness” while decrying propaganda is contradictory.
If a belief cannot survive without being forced on others, then the belief, not the people living freely…. is the agenda. That’s the distinction.

“Propaganda”
Propaganda isn’t diversity, autonomy, or people living their truth, it’s the weaponization of belief to control others. Showing queer people on screen (for five minutes) or supporting women’s right to choose isn’t “pushing an agenda”; it’s acknowledging reality. The real agenda is hiding behind morality to take away agency: forcing a teen or sexual assault survivor to carry a pregnancy, dictating who people can love, or enforcing religious rules on everyone else while pretending it’s “for their own good.” It’s not about care or ethics; it’s about control. And the kicker? These people rarely give a damn about the outcomes, if the child is disabled, neglected, abused or struggling, that doesn’t matter. What matters is that their moral scoreboard looks clean. Freedom, choice, and empathy threaten them, so they call it an “agenda” to scare others into compliance. If your beliefs need chains to survive, that’s not morality, it’s coercion masquerading as virtue.

“This is Western crap, why bring it to Kdrama?”
Again, watching a LAW drama and complaining it’s “Western propaganda” is peak absurdity. This isn’t a romcom with rainbow sunshine; it’s a show about real societal issues which exist everywhere, not just in the U.S. Expecting a legal drama to ignore these realities is like complaining about rain during a storm. If discomfort equals propaganda, then reality itself is offensive, but maybe the problem isn’t the show, it’s the viewer.

Why did i take this drama as pro bono and defend it with my last two brain cells after scrolling through all the ignorant takes?
Because unlike some viewers, I actually understand what a law drama is, what human rights mean, and that empathy isn’t a ‘Western agenda.’ Yes, I got offended reading these comments deny basic human rights to fellow humans because it doesn’t align with their own religious beliefs. Religious beliefs should dictate how you lead your own life, not how you can control other’s life. I respect your religion and your beliefs. If you don’t want to abort your own baby, that is your choice and I will respect that. If you are not attracted to same sex, that is your orientation, I will respect that. Forcing it on others? Now thats a propaganda, not an opinion.

Media does not exist in a vacuum, it shapes what society sees as normal, moral, and acceptable. When topics addressed in this drama are ignored or softened, existing power structures are quietly validated. By portraying legal support for queer individuals and the real consequences of denying women choice over their own bodies, the show acknowledges lived realities that affect vulnerable people every day. This is not about promoting an ideology, but about refusing to romanticize control, questioning “clean” moral endings that overlook trauma, and reminding viewers that autonomy, consent, and dignity are essential to justice.


Addendum: Why I rated it high, what my actual critique is, and why that still doesn’t validate the comment section meltdown.

My initial high rating was intentional. The review space had already been flooded with low effort, ideologically driven ratings after just two/four episodes, people declaring the show “too woke” while admitting they barely watched it. The high rating was bait: to get people to actually read why this discourse matters.

That said, defending this drama from bad faith attacks does not mean I think it’s flawless or even particularly brave. In fact, my criticism starts precisely where the show pulls its punches. Despite gesturing toward queer rights, it never commits to a full queer centred legal case (yet). Representation remains implied, diluted, and safely peripheral present enough to signal progress, absent enough to avoid backlash. It is still a positive representation nonetheless. In a different perspective, this might be a stepping stone for upcoming law dramas. Similarly, the storyline involving a coerced teen pregnancy initially frames reproductive control as a legal and ethical violation, only to abandon that stance by episode four. The narrative retreats into a “neutral” resolution, having the disabled child adopted by an anti abortion hospital CEO, which conveniently avoids confronting the core issue: forcing a teenager to give birth against her will. This is narrative risk aversion. In other words, the show wants credit for raising hard questions without fully sitting in their consequences. That’s a valid critique. It reflects an industry tendency to appear progressive while ultimately reassuring conservative comfort zones. I also do not align with or endorse any alleged MAP symbolism or geopolitical propaganda some viewers have pointed out (till 4 eps).

Now here’s where the distinction matters: criticism is not the same as reactionary hate. Criticism interrogates execution, consistency, and ethical follow through. What I’m pushing back against in the comments is not thoughtful disagreement, it’s people collapsing at the mere presence of queer people or women exercising bodily autonomy and calling that collapse an “opinion.” Saying “the show avoids depth” or “it plays it too safe” is criticism. Saying “stop shoving this agenda down our throats” because marginalized people exist on screen is ideological panic.

When shows avoid fully confronting coercion, trauma, or queer legal realities, they don’t become “neutral”, they quietly reinforce existing power structures. My review defends the right of these issues to be addressed in this genre while holding the show accountable for how cautiously it ultimately does so. This review is not a blind praise. It is a refusal to let bad faith outrage masquerade as media critique. You’re allowed to dislike this drama. You’re allowed to critique its writing. What you’re not doing, no matter how loudly you insist is engaging in honest criticism when your problem is that other people’s rights make you uncomfortable.

Read More

I like the lead actor but not in this

I Barely got through episode 1- I like the actor but the plot & method of acting felt stale. Episode 2 was very very much for dog lovers and had ethics that were on the fence. Episode 3 had the lead being dragged off to an LGBTQ festival-dressing up like a rainbow sailor moon. So far I'm not only underwhelmed, but I'm also not connecting with the plot at all. The cases the team take are pointedly real issues of contention in South Korean society. By episode 8 it's obvious that this is a heavy topic landmine of a series. As a westerner, I feel a good bit of disconnect with the clients/issues. I also didn't find the case topics "entertaining" . A boy suing God for letting him be born, a "mail order" bride from another country, an idol who is suffering from oppressive & obsessive public scrutiny. Although there is lighthearted times sprinkled throughout the drama, thre is no disguising the passionate calling out of the imperfect law that feels like it's one big pitch & platform for reform-which for me, is not the entertainment escapism that I'm looking for. The heavy topics coupled with the male lead character's selfish grumpy childish demeanor is unappealing & falls flat comedically. The reason behind why the male lead is in the position that he is in, IS the only interesting thing about this drama so far (for me). I decided that instead of waiting for the rest of the episodes to be aired, I would just bail out at the end of episode 7.

Read More

Good Drama

I don’t actually give my personal opinions here but I think the kind of nonsense people are uttering about a legal drama is absurd. The drama is good and they have touched alot of social issues which are prevelent right now in the world. If you people want to live in your la la land then you can watch some rom-com in your house, you don’t need to go and watch a legal show and crib about it not being comic enough. If a legal drama is not going to deal with the social issues then what do you want a romantic show to deal with these issues. I highly suspect you would ever want to watch that. The show deals with alot of flaws in the korean judiciary and comments on that.
HIGHLY RECOMMEND!!!!!!!!!!

Read More

Love it or hate it

I started watching this with goodwill, but it got more ridiculous for me. It pulls out all stops with sentimentality and the practice of law became more and more unbelievable. This would suit audiences who are able to suspend their beliefs and buy into the miraculous defense lawyers who are able to turn all cases their way, if not immediately then through appeals. Also, it cheapens the complexities of issues by making the opposition an incompetent lawyer cardboard bad guy who apparently is high up on the professional tree. It works for some people especially those who are passionate about the raised issues. The drama works less well for those interested in exploring complex issues through thoughtful engagement. There are other K dramas that do that better.

Read More

Keep it in neutral. Edit 12-22 It's NOT neutral

Why do they feel the need to to include ongoing political and social propaganda when the world is completely divided and fighting over said issues? Abortion, religion (specifically Islam), and the ever ongoing rainbow community is in the mix. Netflix was/is already under fire for the genie piece dropped earlier this year and here we go again.
There are no middle grounds with "WOKE" issues like this for most ppl, not anymore. We watch dramas to escape the ugliness and intolerance in the world. Not to see see it front and center in the middle of our streams. Films, dramas, short stories, it doesn't matter. Doing this pretty much negates the ability to receive fair and unbiased reviews because rads on either side will flock to praise or destroy with their opinions. (Oh, why do reviews say they've completed the drama when there's still 2 weeks+ left?)
I stopped watching dam near anything from the US years ago because of this and SK works have given me that out for a solid 15+ years. To see it creeping into their stories on a regular basis lately is just flat out depressing.
For the record, I don't care about this stuff personally which is why I'll leave straight 5s across the board for neutrality. FOR NOW. But take into consideration what I've said when it comes to the extremity of some of the other reviews and try to view without bias~
EDIT 12/22/26
I watched EP 6. Whew. It deserves to be bashed now. I mentioned bias before. This is NOT my bias. It's the writers demonstrating theirs. The writer has gone full on crazy. They put in abortion views, they put in their views about the alphabet community, fine...........but adding one of the worst and top problems the entire world is fighting with each other about was and is just plain out stupid. Immigration and asylum laws. And yes, I said stupid because that's going to bring religion in to the mix and there is no middle ground with that. And oh ya, rape is also being mixed up into the mess. SK has to be one of the worst countries in the world for allowing alcohol to be a mitigating circumstance for the crimes of rape, murder, everything actually. The entire drama had been extremely controversial but it is a law drama. With the views being expressed here, I'd wager the writer is swinging for the left.

It can be difficult but it's not impossible to stand in the middle when creating these stories, it can be done in ways to avoid upsetting any sides. That's not going on here. It's straight up political and it makes me sad that SK writers have been choosing sides as of late. Ppl can disagree with me and that's perfectly fine but I believe topics such as the ones being discussed have to be broached carefully at all times. My curiosity now wanders to what they will bring up over the last half of the drama. I will not drop.

Read More

xenophobia

Rating: 3/10 (Some solid acting and case-of-the-week drama, but drowned in unchecked xenophobia and superiority complex)

Pro Bono tries to sell itself as a heartwarming legal drama about justice for the underdog, with Jung Kyung-ho playing Kang Da-wit—a smug, materialistic ex-judge who's forced into the pro bono team after his perfect career crashes. He starts off as this arrogant "legal influencer" who looks down on everyone below his status, and that absolutely includes foreigners and people from outside Korea living in the country. The way he treats (or ignores) non-Koreans makes it clear: In his eyes—and often in the show's subtle framing—they're not fully part of society, barely even human worthy of real respect or empathy.

Early on, Kang Da-wit embodies that classic Korean elite attitude: Foreigners, especially migrant workers or marriage immigrants from poorer countries (like the foreign wife in one of the cases, enduring domestic violence in rural Korea), are just problems to deal with—or props for his redemption arc. He approaches their cases with cold detachment, like they're inconvenient nuisances invading "pure" Korean space rather than actual people deserving dignity. There's this underlying vibe that outsiders don't belong, aren't "one of us," and their struggles are somehow self-inflicted because they dared to come here. He bullies or dismisses the vulnerable with that superior smirk, puffing himself up by stepping on those he sees as beneath him—migrants, the poor, anyone not born-and-bred Korean. It's all played for "character growth," but it reeks of real societal issues that the drama never fully calls out.

And the hypocrisy? Infuriating. While Kang Da-wit (and the show) has no problem portraying Southeast Asian or other non-white foreigners as pitiful victims at best (or invisible at worst), you just know if an American character showed up—some white expat or "master" type—he'd switch to fawning mode instantly. The narrative bends over backward to avoid critiquing the real power dynamics: Korea's lingering deference to America, the U.S. military bases treated as untouchable, Koreans acting like loyal servants to their "owners" while deriving fake superiority from bullying weaker nations' people. Da-wit feels "superior" by kicking down at migrant wives or workers, but he'd never dare challenge the actual overlords.
If Koreans (or this drama's writers) really have such a problem with foreigners integrating into society and being treated as humans, then have the guts to address the elephant in the room: Tell your American "masters" to leave. Kick out the bases, end the alliances, and see how the ROK army stands alone without that protection. But no—it's easier to dehumanize powerless immigrants than confront the colonial inferiority complex that's still propping up the whole system.

Pro Bono had potential to explore true multiculturalism and human rights in modern Korea, especially with its pro bono focus on the marginalized. Instead, the male lead's arc reinforces the status quo: He "grows" just enough to win cases, but the deep-seated disdain for outsiders lingers. Skip this if you want something that actually challenges xenophobia—it's just glossy entertainment papering over ugly realities.

Read More

Lazy and dull

This k drama clearly wants to be some sort of breaking point on social issues in sk, using some type of unfunny comedy to do it. But it doesn't work. The story isn't good, characters are annoying and the cases are so weak and bad that it's hard to not sleep while watching.
Of course, I have personal opinions on the point of the show and the content of it itself, but I'm pretty sure you can do a show about social issues and still be good and not lazy and bad like this one.
I remember watching a British tv show called Unforgetten -- that was heavily political and pretty focused on social issues -- and even I, that usually don't like these types of shows, liked it and watched all seasons. Why? Cause it was good and entertaining. That's not the case of Pro Bono, which it's just dull and, well, lazy.

Read More

feel-good drama

The first episode was exhausting for me. About three times I was tempted to stop watching altogether. And that’s where the half-point deduction comes from. I stayed for Jung Kyung Ho, and already by the second episode I didn’t regret it. Granted, when I saw the lawyers from the Pro Bono Team, I had the worst possible premonitions. Seriously—a case about who owns a dog? And yet the case was handled so brilliantly, so humorously, so cleverly that I had an absolute blast watching it.

This drama is above all about intelligent dialogue and intelligent people. The entire Pro Bono team may be a bit ideologically eccentric, but the drama takes care to show their backstories and explain where their idealism comes from. It doesn’t do this in a heavy-handed way—sometimes just a few sentences from one character, a single scene, explains exactly “why.” As a result, I grew fond of them quite quickly, especially since their cases are not about any kind of “woke” ideology, but about fighting for a specific person with a specific problem, and only occasionally placing that fight in a broader social context.

But this is where something truly great appears—Kang Da-Wit. Intelligent, cunning, able to make use of all the small arrangements and leverage points in the judicial world, shining there like the biggest stage star—showing respect for people, for the office, and for institutions, but also with a huge wink of the eye. Against the background of this whole ideological bunch, he feels like a breath of reason and freshness.

And perhaps most importantly—this drama gives a sense of satisfaction. Every character is three-dimensional, capable of change, and every case, even if it doesn’t unfold perfectly, at some point provides a feeling of fulfillment. For me, this is a total feel-good drama. Apart from the first episode, not a single second is wasted.

Read More

Jung Kyung Ho Brings Light to Every Episode

ung Kyung Ho’s acting once again exceeds expectations. He is endlessly entertaining, and it genuinely feels like he consistently chooses thoughtful scripts that carry meaningful lessons—something I truly admire about his career choices.

I’m absolutely loving every case he takes on as an attorney in the Pro Bono team. His character is sharp, witty, and incredibly charming, bringing warmth and positivity to every episode. He has a natural ability to make even the most serious cases engaging, emotional, and enjoyable to watch.

Overall, Jung Kyung Ho completely shines in Pro Bono. His performance is the heart of the show and the main reason it’s such a fun, rewarding, and satisfying watch.

Read More

Started because the teasers looked good but….

I started watching it because I got enthusiastic after watching the teasers.
Only doubt was because it’s a Netflix series.
The reason I stopped watching from Netflix and other big streaming platforms is the propaganda agenda from the rainbow people.
After episode 1 I started to notice those flags. But gave it a try.
After episode 3 their propaganda was obviously.
I dropped this drama.
I started to watch Asian dramas because it wasn’t about this propaganda.
Sad that this has spread to Asia also.
It gets harder to just watch a normal romantic or crime and fantasy stories without the propaganda agenda of the rainbow flag people.

Read More

Episodes 1–2 Review: “This Isn’t a Legal Drama… It’s Cinema.”

Pro Bono” isn’t just another legal drama.
It’s a series that understands visual grammar, emotional language, and intentional directing.
More than a drama… Pro Bono is cinema.

The show begins lightly, almost disguised as a dramedy, but very quickly reveals a level of writing that knows exactly when to breathe, when to laugh, and when to break you.
The first pro bono case — involving a mistreated dog — is unexpectedly powerful.
It’s tender, heartbreaking, and filmed with a sincerity that Korean dramas rarely achieve. The camera work is subtle, the emotional beats are precise, and the courtroom scene is nothing short of cinematic: the case isn’t won by arguments, but by truth in its purest form.

Jung Kyung-ho delivers a compelling portrayal of a former judge who is brilliant yet detached from real human suffering. His fall from the bench forces him to see the world he once judged from above, revealing a man who is rigid, proud, and emotionally clumsy… yet fundamentally just.

Supporting actors shine, especially Seo Hye-won with her controlled comedic timing, and So Joo-yeon, whose natural reactions elevate every scene she appears in. They bring warmth, contrast, and rhythm to a story that could have easily fallen into cliché — but never does.

“Pro Bono” starts as something light.
Ten minutes in, it becomes something else.
Twenty minutes in, it has heart.
By the end of Episode 2… it has a soul.

Read More