Gloss on the Judgment of the German Federal Labor Court (Bundesarbeitsgericht) of 24 October 2018, Case 10 AZR 69/18, Previous Instance Regional Labor Court (Landesarbeitsgericht) Hamburg, Judgment of 30 August 2017, Case 5 Sa 21/17
Okładka czasopisma Studia Prawa Publicznego, nr 1 (49), rok 2025
PDF (English)

Słowa kluczowe

Employed lawyer
admission to the bar
professional independence
employer’s duty of consideration

Jak cytować

Schirrmacher, C. (2025). Gloss on the Judgment of the German Federal Labor Court (Bundesarbeitsgericht) of 24 October 2018, Case 10 AZR 69/18, Previous Instance Regional Labor Court (Landesarbeitsgericht) Hamburg, Judgment of 30 August 2017, Case 5 Sa 21/17. Studia Prawa Publicznego, (1 (49), 127–138. https://doi.org/10.14746/spp.2025.1.49.8

Abstrakt

On 24 October 2018, the Federal Labor Court ruled that a “legal pro- tection secretary” employed by a trade union who advised trade union members on labor law issues could not be admitted to the bar. He lacked the professional independence required by the Federal Lawyers’ Act because, according to his employment contract, he had to respect the ideals of the trade unions. Although the employer had never given the legal protection secretary any instructions as to how he was to advise clients, the employer was also not obliged to confirm  to the bar association that the legal protection secretary was carrying out his advisory work independently. The ruling, which is much discussed in Germany, raises the fundamental and still unresolved question of under what circumstances a legal advisor is “professionally independent.” This not only concerns the German legal landscape, but is particularly difficult to answer under German law because the legal situation is paradoxical: the German legislator itself allows employees access to the legal profession. The fact that a legal advisor is hired as an employee therefore does not automatically eliminate their professional independence. But what else? This gloss aims to contribute to this discussion.

https://doi.org/10.14746/spp.2025.1.49.8
PDF (English)

Bibliografia

Barry B.M., How Judges Judge: Empirical Insights into Judicial Decision­Making, London 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429023422

Bauckmann M., § 1, in: BRAO, ed. D. Weyland, 11th ed., München 2024, paras. 1–24, pp. 22–31.

DGB (Deutscher Gewerkschaftsbund, German Trade Union Federation), Bericht zur Rentenpolitik in Deutschland, 2019.

Jähne I., § 46, in: BRAO, ed. D. Weyland, 11th ed., München 2024, paras. 1–38, pp. 662–679.

Knauer C., Zur Wahrheitspflicht des (Revisions­)Verteidigers, in: Strafverteidigung, Revi­ sion und die gesamten Strafrechtswissenschaften. Festschrift für Gunter Widmaier zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. H. Schöch et al., Hürth 2008, pp. 291–310.

Sisk G.C., Heise M., Morriss A.P., Charting the Influences on the Judicial Mind, “New York University Law Review” 1998, vol. 73, no. 5, pp. 1377–1500.

Stuart H., Employee Identification with the Corporate Identity – Issues and Implications, “International Studies of Management & Organization” 2002, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 28–44. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00208825.2002.11043663

Weisberg M., Dent E., Meaning or money? Non­profit employee satisfaction, “Voluntary Sector Review” 2016, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 293–313. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1332/096278916X14767760873899

Wolf C., § 46 BRAO, in: Anwaltliches Berufsrecht, ed. R. Gaier et. al., 3rd ed., Cologne 2020, paras. 1–99, pp. 802–814.

Wolf C., § 46a BRAO, in: Anwaltliches Berufsrecht, ed. R. Gaier et. al., 3rd ed., Cologne 2020, paras. 1–71, pp. 829–845.