SuperAPI AI Directory
Partner with us中文AI newsFavorites
Skillsbrao-pflichtenpruefung

brao-pflichtenpruefung

General & other

View repository

Updated 10-16 05:01

About this skill

/berufsrecht-anwaltschaft:brao-pflichtenpruefung

Purpose

The skill examines the central fundamental duties of the BRAO along a fixed order — confidentiality first, conflict of interest second, then the specific complexes of duties (advertising, outsourcing, remuneration, third-party funds). It serves both as a mandate acceptance checklist and as a defense grid when a reprimand or attorney disciplinary proceeding is imminent. For each duty, the skill shows the criminal-law reflexes (§§ 203, 356 StGB) and the procedural-law consequences (§§ 73 et seq., §§ 113 et seq. BRAO).

Inputs

  • Law firm structure (sole practitioner, partnership, PartG mbB, RA-GmbH; location)
  • Description of the mandate (opponent, facts of the case, prior involvement in the firm?)
  • Earlier mandates that could be affected (firm database!)
  • Third-party providers in the workflow (cloud, AI tools, external typist, file scanning) — contract status, AVV in place?
  • Fee model (hourly rate, flat fee, fee agreement, success fee considered?)
  • Advertising/public appearance (website, social media, acquisition letters)
  • Reason for the review: mandate initiation / ongoing mandate / reprimand proceedings / supervisory hearing by the RAK

Sub-agent architecture

Researcher supplies BRAO/BORA statutes, BGH Senate for Attorney Matters case law on confidentiality, conflict of interest, advertising and outsourcing, BVerfG on Art. 12 GG advertising, as well as standard commentaries (Henssler/Prütting, Feuerich/Weyland, Kleine-Cosack, Hartung/Scharmer). Drafter examines the six complexes of duties in expert-opinion style with attribution to the firm and writes a mandate acceptance or rejection memorandum. Reviewer sets confidentiality (§ 203 StGB) and conflict of interest (§ 43a IV BRAO + § 3 BORA) as mandatory duty points 1 and 2 — gaps are blockers.

Procedure

1. Confidentiality § 43a(2) BRAO — § 2 BORA — § 203 StGB

Confidentiality is the central fundamental duty of the attorney. It covers everything that has become known in the exercise of the profession, applies without limitation in time without limitation (also after the end of the mandate, § 43a(2) sentence 1 BRAO) and is not substantively limited to the client. A breach is punishable under § 203(1) no. 3 StGB (fine or imprisonment of up to 1 year).

Permitted exceptions:

  • Consent of the client (express, informed)
  • Assertion of the attorney's legitimate interests (§ 2(3) BORA, to be construed narrowly — e.g. fee claim, defense against accusations)
  • Statutory disclosure obligations (e.g. money laundering § 43 GwG in conjunction with § 2 GwG, §§ 138, 139 StGB reporting duties within a narrow framework)

Data breach protection: the attorney owes organizational safeguards (locked files, IT security, need-to-know within the firm).

2. Conflict of interest § 43a(4) BRAO — § 3 BORA — § 356 StGB

It is prohibited to represent conflicting interests . Standard:

  • “the same legal matter” the same set of facts with an internal connection, even if formally separate case numbers.
  • Prior involvement — even if only advisory, even if only out of court, even if only by another professional colleague of the firm — precludes acting.
  • Attribution to the firm § 3 BORA: What a member of the firm knows / has represented is attributed to all. Even after departure, the preclusion remains for the former member and for the firm if he was active "in the same legal matter".
  • Consent of both clients can cure the conflict if objectively there is no risk (§ 3(2) BORA, dispute over scope — prevailing view: to be construed narrowly).

Criminal offense: § 356 StGB (party betrayal — imprisonment of three months to five years).

3. Requirement of objectivity § 43a(3) BRAO — § 44 BRAO

The lawyer may not behave in an unobjective manner. Unobjective conduct includes in particular deliberate untruths, demeaning statements without substantive relevance. Dispute over scope (BVerfG: broad freedom of expression Art. 5 GG for professional statements [unverifiziert – prüfen]).

4. Advertising § 43b BRAO — §§ 6 et seq. BORA

Objective information about professional activity is permissible. Prohibited is advertising aimed at obtaining a mandate in an individual case. § 6 BORA specifies: no promotional advertising, no comparative advertising with professional colleagues, no statements of success and revenue (§ 7 BORA) without documented basis.

The BVerfG has repeatedly relaxed advertising law in a manner consistent with fundamental rights (Art. 12 GG [unverifiziert – prüfen]).

5. Outsourcing § 43e BRAO — bridge to AI/cloud compliance

Outsourcing to third parties (IT service providers, cloud, AI tools, external typist) requires:

  • Written agreement on confidentiality (§ 43e(2) No. 1 BRAO)
  • Careful selection and monitoring of the service provider (§ 43e(2) No. 2 BRAO)
  • Obligation of auxiliary persons to confidentiality under § 203(4) StGB
  • DPA (Art. 28 GDPR) in parallel
  • Information of the client, if there are particular risks (e.g. cloud storage outside the EU, generative AI with training risk)

For AI tools: prompts with a mandate connection contain protected secrets within the meaning of § 203 StGB. Without an agreement compliant with § 43e and without an obligation under § 203(4) StGB → risk of criminal liability. Bridge to the planned ki-governance-skill.

6. Remuneration § 49b BRAO — RVG

  • Fees under the RVG are in principle binding; falling below them outside court proceedings is permitted within limits (§ 49b(1) BRAO, § 4 RVG).
  • Prohibition of contingency fees § 49b(2) BRAO. Exceptions § 4a RVG: (i) the client would otherwise refrain from pursuing legal remedies for economic reasons, (ii) debt collection services, (iii) foreign cases, each construed narrowly.
  • Fee agreement in text form, clearly set apart from the mandate agreement (§ 3a RVG).
  • Third-party funds § 43a(5) BRAO: separate trust account, immediate disbursement, only very limited scope for set-off rights.

7. AML notification obligations under Section 50 BRAO

For activities listed in the catalogue under Section 2 GwG (e.g. real estate transactions, company formations involving the flow of funds), identification and record-keeping obligations apply. Section 43e BRAO governs the professional-law flanking provisions; Section 50 BRAO implements this in chamber law. Infringement: professional-law measures + GwG fines.

8. Procedural-law consequences

  • Reprimand under Section 74 BRAO by the chamber board. Challenge within 1 month of service.
  • Attorney disciplinary proceedings under Sections 113 et seq. BRAO. Catalogue of sanctions under Section 114: warning, reprimand, fine of up to EUR 50,000, prohibition on representation for one to five years, exclusion from the legal profession.
  • Limitation period for prosecution under Section 115 BRAO: 5 years, beginning with the end of the breach of duty (continuing infringements: end of the continuing state of affairs).
  • In addition: civil liability (Section 280 BGB in conjunction with the mandate agreement), criminal prosecution (Sections 203, 356 StGB), competition-law claims (UWG in the case of advertising infringements).

Sources and citation style

Authoritative: ../../../references/zitierweise.md.

Statutes

Commentaries

  • Henssler, in: Henssler/Prütting, BRAO, 6th ed. 2024, Section 43a marginal no. 1 et seq., Section 43e marginal no. 1 et seq.
  • Träger, in: Feuerich/Weyland, BRAO, 11th ed. 2024, Section 43a marginal no. 1 et seq.
  • Kleine-Cosack, BRAO, 9th ed. 2023, Section 43a marginal no. 1 et seq.
  • Hartung, in: Hartung/Scharmer, Anwaltsberufsrecht (BORA), 7th ed. 2024, Section 3 BORA marginal no. 1 et seq.
  • Fischer, StGB, 71st ed. 2024, § 203 marginal no. 1 et seq., § 356 marginal no. 1 et seq.

Case law ([unverifiziert – prüfen in juris/Beck-Online])

  1. BVerfG, order of 12.12.2007 – 1 BvR 1625/06, NJW 2008, 502 (lawyer advertising)
  2. BGH, judgment of 25.06.2020 – IX ZR 243/18, NJW 2020, 2614 (scope of client confidentiality in IT outsourcing)
  3. BGH Senate for Lawyers' Matters, order of … – AnwZ (Brfg) …/… (conflict of interest, "the same legal matter")
  4. ECJ, judgment of 14.09.2010 – Case C-550/07 P, ECLI:EU:C:2010:512 (Akzo Nobel — legal privilege in EU antitrust proceedings, only for independent lawyers)
  5. BGH, judgment of 13.05.2014 – VI ZR 192/13, NJW 2014, 2492 (lawyer's duty of care and duty to inform)

Output format

VERMERK — BRAO-Pflichtenprüfung
Kanzlei: <…>           Datum: <TT.MM.JJJJ>
Mandat:   <Bezeichnung anonymisiert>

I. Sachverhalt (knapp)
II. Frage(n)
III. Kurzantwort
    – Mandatsannahme: [ja / ja mit Auflagen / nein]
    – Begründung in einem Satz

IV. Rechtliche Bewertung
    1. Verschwiegenheit § 43a II BRAO / § 2 BORA / § 203 StGB
       – Datenfluss, Auslagerung, Mandanteneinwilligung?
    2. Interessenkollision § 43a IV BRAO / § 3 BORA / § 356 StGB
       – Vorbefassung Sozietät? Konfliktdatenbank-Check
       – „Dieselbe Rechtssache"?
       – Einwilligungsoption?
    3. Sachlichkeit § 43a III / § 44 BRAO
    4. Werbung § 43b BRAO / §§ 6 ff. BORA
    5. Auslagerung § 43e BRAO
       – Drittanbieter, AVV, § 203 IV StGB-Verpflichtung
       – KI-Bezug
    6. Vergütung § 49b BRAO / §§ 3a, 4a RVG
       – Erfolgshonorar-Risiko?
       – Fremdgeld § 43a V BRAO
    7. GwG-Hinweispflichten § 50 BRAO

V. Verfahrensrechtliche Folgen bei Verstoß
   – Rüge § 74 BRAO (1 Monat Anfechtung)
   – Anwaltsgerichtliche Maßnahmen §§ 113 ff., § 114 BRAO
   – Verjährung 5 Jahre § 115 BRAO
   – Strafrechtliche Reflexe §§ 203, 356 StGB
   – Zivilrechtliche Haftung § 280 BGB

VI. Empfehlung
    – konkrete Handlungsschritte (Mandat annehmen / ablehnen / Auflagen)
    – Dokumentation (Konfliktcheck-Protokoll, Mandanteneinwilligung)

VII. Risikoeinstufung
     🟢 / 🟡 / 🔴 mit Begründung

VIII. Quellenverzeichnis

Example (excerpt in legal-opinion style)

Question: May law firm K take over the defense of client M if a partner in the firm advised the opposing party on tax matters two years ago?

Assessment: There is a prior involvement of the firm within the meaning of § 43a(4) BRAO in conjunction with § 3 BORA. The tax advice to the opposing side and the mandate now pending are interlocked in the same legal matter if the asset structure advised on at that time is the subject of the current dispute. Prior involvement of one member of the firm is attributable to all members of the firm (§ 3 BORA, prevailing view: Henssler, in: Henssler/Prütting, 6th ed. 2024, § 3 BORA marginal no. 12 [unverifiziert]). Mutual consent of both parties could in principle cure the conflict (§ 3(2) BORA), but here it is practically out of the question because of openly conflicting interests. Consequence: decline the mandate, since otherwise there would be a breach of § 43a(4) BRAO and a risk of criminal liability under § 356 StGB.

Result: 🔴 — decline the mandate, document the reasoning (conflict check protocol).

Risks / typical mistakes

  • Overlooking prior involvement of the firm, because the earlier mandate was handled under a different case number or in a different office — § 3 BORA attributes both.
  • Misunderstanding client consent as a universal remedy — in cases of openly conflicting interests, it does not work (§ 3(2) BORA, prevailing view).
  • AI outsourcing without a § 43e agreement and without a § 203(4) StGB undertaking — punishable under § 203(1) no. 3 StGB.
  • Contingency fee promised outside § 4a RVG — agreement void, RVG rates apply, if applicable reclaiming of amounts paid on a success basis.
  • Advertising promise ("We will enforce your claim") — breach of § 43b BRAO + § 6 BORA, UWG warning letter possible.
  • Third-party funds in the business account instead of a trust account — breach of § 43a(5) BRAO, initial suspicion of embezzlement § 266 StGB.
  • 1-month period § 74 BRAO missed — the reprimand becomes final.
  • 5-year statute of limitations for prosecution § 115 BRAO assumed too early in the case of continuing violations (e.g., permanently impermissible advertising) — begins with the end of the continuing state.