Anyone who is admitted to practice as a lawyer must comply § 27 of the Federal Lawyers Act (BRAO) “to establish and maintain a law firm,” as the law puts it in general terms. But what exactly is meant by this is disputed.
The Lawyers’ Senate has now decided on a very restrictive interpretation. The Karlsruhe lawyer judges ruled that the ability of a practicing lawyer to use a meeting room in an office center if necessary did not meet the requirements of a law firm. The Berlin Bar Association (RAK) rightly asked him to provide evidence of his own office space. This is what emerges from the tenor that the Lawyers’ Senate announced on Monday after the oral hearing in the morning (Urt. v. 1.12.2025 – AnwZ (Brfg) 50/24).
Office sign, call acceptance, bookable meeting rooms
Table of Contents
The Lawyers’ Senate had to decide on an issue that is now commonplace: the plaintiff is a practicing lawyer and at the same time admitted as an in-house lawyer at a company. In his capacity as a practicing lawyer, he has set up his office so that his postal address is in an office center near Berlin Central Station.
There is an office sign and a mailbox for him there, and calls are answered by employees of the office center who are sworn to secrecy and forwarded to him. Emails reach the lawyer directly and he also has his own homepage. If a personal meeting is necessary, he books a meeting room in the office center. But this will happen, according to the lawyer opposite beck-current, only very rarely, as he mainly works in an advisory capacity in his area of expertise, environmental law.
But that is not enough for the Berlin Bar Association (RAK). She is of the opinion that he must have his own premises, as this is a “law firm” within the meaning of the law § 27 READ was necessary. She gave the lawyer a so-called disapproving instruction and asked him to prove that he had his own (specific) premises for a law firm.
AGH Berlin: A lawyer does not have to be in one place permanently
The plaintiff sued against this instruction, which is legally an administrative act, and initially won before the Berlin Bar Court (AGH). In the opinion of the Berlin lawyer judges, the lawyer maintains premises that meet the requirements of a law firm in the sense of § 27 READ are equivalent to. The term law firm should not be viewed statically, but should be seen in a respective social and technical environment. In a digitally changing society, a modern, technology-open understanding of terms is important. The plaintiff’s precautions correspond to this understanding.
According to the Senate, it is not necessary and, given a lawyer who is also admitted as an in-house lawyer, it is not to be expected that the plaintiff spends most of his time in his own office. In addition, a lawyer is also permitted to maintain branches and several separate law firms. Therefore, the Federal Lawyers’ Act (BRAO) does not assume permanent presence in one place. The lawyer is therefore sufficiently accessible to the legal-seeking public.
However, the RAK did not want to be satisfied with this and filed an appeal, which the AGH allowed because of its fundamental importance. She is still of the opinion that the plaintiff must have his own rooms. And now got it from BGH Law: The Senate of Lawyers accepted the appeal Judgment of the AGH Berlin overturned and the lawsuit dismissed.
BGH: Bookable rooms at a specific address are not enough
Even if the written reasons for the decision are not yet available, the repeal of the Urtees of the AGH Berlin One thing is already clear: The Lawyers’ Senate is not only rejecting the so-called virtual law firm. Even the ability to always rent an available room at a specific address when needed is sufficient BGH not. Anyone who is licensed to practice law must provide proof of a fixed room in which they are available to their clients – whenever. Even if, like the plaintiff, he hardly ever uses this space.
How the Senate of Lawyers justifies this decision can be awaited with excitement. After all, the Berlin environmental lawyer had the opportunity to use a room in these proceedings, even if only after registering and booking. So it wasn’t even about a purely virtual office, but rather there were rooms available if needed. The Senate will also examine why this should not be sufficient with regard to freedom of occupation Art. 12 GG have to justify.
Opinion: Hardly better than the living room office
In 2025, such a restriction no longer seems appropriate, and that was the case Berlin recognized. The Berlin lawyer judges had prioritized the accessibility of the plaintiff lawyer and did not focus on fixed premises.
Especially when it comes to advisory activities, it no longer seems appropriate to require fixed office space. Even with in-house lawyers who also have offices at their employer’s office, it is surprising that they also have to maintain rooms that they rarely use. Rather, the decisive factor must be accessibility for the client and other parties involved.
It is certainly doubtful whether the – undoubtedly permissible and often practiced – living room offices, i.e. office addresses in the homes of many lawyers, are really in the interests of the clients. Conversations in an office center that offers the opportunity to use larger rooms are probably more productive than in a living room or private kitchen or in a coffee shop or restaurant. But now it’s up to the legislature: After evaluating the reasons for the decision, they must urgently consider § 27 READ to regulate what is meant by a law firm today.
The author Martin W. Huff is a lawyer in Singen (Hohentwiel) and former managing director of the Cologne Bar Association. He regularly publishes specialist articles on, among other things, professional law topics.
Guest article by Martin W. Huff, December 1, 2025.
