DAV and large law firms
The German Lawyers’ Association (DAV) wants to get the reins of action back into its own hands in the conflict with large commercial law firms. A new ‘forum’ in the DAV is intended to give them a better voice. The proposal is not yet too specific, but the move could break the front of the critics.
–
The dispute between large law firms such as Clifford Chance, EY Law, Hengeler Mueller, Luther or Noerr on the one hand and the DAV on the other has been smoldering for months. It revolves around the question: What does the right political representation of interests for large law firms look like? It is clear that many large law firms do not see themselves sufficiently represented by the DAV.
A tangible example of this is the end of the British LLP legal form for law firms in Germany. This legal form, which is also popular with many German law firms, disappeared without a word in the course of the Brexit turmoil, without professional associations having positioned themselves sufficiently – at least according to the critics.
The threat that commercial law firms would form their own association recently put the DAV on the barricades. After that he branded it as counterproductive. And now the DAV welcomes the commercial law firms with open arms. An amazing gesture. But even one that is overdue, the DAV wants to somehow prevent its own association for commercial law firms in Germany.
DAV wants a meeting before Easter
The first meeting of the ‘Forum for Commercial Law Firms’ is scheduled to take place on April 7th. Here, “our colleagues from commercial law firms should bring their specific concerns, expertise and experience to bear institutionally under the umbrella of the DAV,” according to the DAV press release of February 28. That sounds very far-reaching – although one detail is surprising on closer inspection. Because in a letter sent by DAV President Edith Kindermann to various lawyers just a few days earlier, there is exactly the same sentence – but without the word “institutional”. But this word could be decisive.
Institutional influence is likely to be crucial
Because if it’s just a question of bringing business law firms together in some discussion group to exchange ideas with the DAV Executive Committee, the business law firms will politely decline. However, if the interests of the big players are “institutional” anchored in the DAV, the situation will be different. If the DAV were to change its statutes and provide for a fixed quota for representatives of commercial law firms on the board or even the presidency, they would suddenly have real influence.
But whether in the DAV or in a new association – one catch remains: The interests of a medium-sized business law firm with 50 lawyers, an American transaction or litigation boutique with hourly rates of 900 euros or an international full-service law firm with several hundred lawyers in Germany alone must be quite heterogeneous – even if they all carry the label ‘commercial law firm’.
Headwind for the planned association
In addition, there is a specific problem of the planned association, because with regard to the initiators Prof. Dr. Thomas Wegerich and Stefan Rizor face headwind. Rizor is well respected as a longtime managing partner of Osborne Clarke. But now he has left the partnership and is officially an of counsel at OC – but without the backing of a law firm partnership. And plantain is considered by many to be multifunctional. As the publisher of various specialist publishers and magazines and as a member of the board of the Federal Association of German Compliance Officers, among others, he knows how to make himself heard in public. But the scene is still divided about his motivation for founding the association.
In this respect, the DAV’s move could turn out to be a very clever one – both in terms of content and timing.
–
