Professional code for lawyers
The Code of Conduct for Lawyers (BORA) is one of the elected representatives and representatives of the Lawyers of the Federal Republic of Germany itself given Professional Code regulates that more details on the professional obligations of the lawyer and professional ethics belongs. They are issued as articles of association by the articles of association at the Federal Bar Association ( Section 59b , Section 191a Paragraph 2 BRAO).
It is to be distinguished from the Federal Lawyers' Act (BRAO) as a basic legal regulation of the lawyer profession with regulations on admission to the profession, the fundamental rights and obligations of the lawyer, the establishment of the bar associations and the legal proceedings.
Participation in delivery
§ 14 BORA provides for a professional obligation of the lawyer to accept a document effectively served on him, to sign the prepared acknowledgment of receipt and to send it back to the sender. However , if the lawyer refuses to return the prepared acknowledgment of receipt to the sender and thus to acknowledge the effectiveness of the service, this was not a violation of his professional duty following from § 14 BORA up to January 1, 2018 , if he is thereby safeguarding the legitimate interests of his client. Such a legitimate interest of the client can e.g. B. be that the client does not want to allow the delivery of an injunction against him within the execution period of one month. In this case, the legitimate interest of the client takes precedence over the lawyer's professional duty as per § 14 BORA.
literature
- Barbara Grunewald : The Development of Legal Professional Law in 2015 , NJW 2015, 3621
- Wolfgang Hartung / Thomas Holl: Legal professional code , 1st edition Munich 1997, Verlag CH Beck, ISBN 3-406-42422-8
- Michael Kleine-Cosack : BRAO with BORA and FAO. Commentary , 7th edition Munich 2015, Verlag CH Beck, ISBN 978-3-406-66508-0
Web links
- BORA Professional Code for Lawyers (as of November 1, 2018) (PDF file; 163 kB)
Individual evidence
- ↑ Judgment of the BGH of October 26, 2015, AnwSt (R) 4/15, NJW 2015, 3672 with comment Möller
