One-stage legal training (Germany)

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The one-stage legal training was tried out in the 1970s to 1990s in the course of the reform discussion of legal training as an alternative to the conventional two-stage legal training with full legal studies and legal internship in the Federal Republic of Germany.

Legal basis

In 1971, Section 5b of the German Judiciary Act (DRiG) in the version of September 10, 1971 was temporarily introduced as an experimental clause, which was initiated by a conference at the Evangelical Academy in Loccum in 1968 and recommendations by the German Jurists Conference in Mainz in 1970. This experimentation clause was originally supposed to expire on September 15, 1981, although a previously started single-stage training could still be completed in accordance with the regulations in force until then. In terms of content, Section 5b DRiG empowers the federal states to combine studies and practical preparation in their (state) legal training laws in a practical training of at least five and a half years. Section 5b of the DRiG stipulated that part of the training had to be completed at courts, administrative authorities and lawyers. The first exam could be replaced by an intermediate exam or by performance controls accompanying training. Like the second state examination in law, the final examination should lead to qualification for judicial office.

With the second law amending the DRiG of August 16, 1980, the validity of the experimentation clause was extended by 5 years. Section 5b DRiG in the version dated August 16, 1980 also provided for a corresponding reservation for state law regulations that had to come into force before September 16, 1981. Art. 3 of the third law amending the German Judiciary Act of July 25, 1984 provided that students could be admitted to the one-stage training until September 15, 1985 and this training could still be completed. On September 15, 1985, § 5b as an experimentation clause was simultaneously repealed. With the repeal of § 5b DRiG, legal training should be standardized again ("uniform lawyer"). In the justification for the law says: "According to the overwhelming opinion, there are weighty reasons for holding on to the unified lawyer: a) Because of the connection between each area of ​​law and the entire legal system, the application of the law not only requires knowledge of individual areas of law; it rather provides a well-founded overview Since not only the jurisprudential and legal advisory, but also the planning and structuring activity of the lawyer has to be carried out within the framework of the law, every lawyer should know the legal core areas - case law, administration and legal advice - from his own experience and activity. b) As an organ of the administration of justice, the lawyer must have the same training as the judge and the public prosecutor. c) It must be possible to switch between legal professions, in particular between the legal profession, administration and the judiciary, and within the judiciary between the different en jurisdictions. The breadth of capabilities and the associated professional mobility are becoming increasingly important on the labor market. d) There are no clearly defined job profiles for specialist lawyers. Training as a specialist lawyer would be associated with considerable disadvantages, given the connection between each area of ​​law and the entire legal system. There have been no positive experiences with special training courses in the past. The Prussian system of 'government trainee' was rightly abandoned. "

One-stage legal training in the federal states

At the time, this reform project was implemented in 7 federal states: Baden-Württemberg ( University of Konstanz from 1974), Bavaria ( University of Augsburg - from the fall semester of 1971 - and University of Bayreuth from 1977), Bremen from 1971, Hamburg ( University of Hamburg from 1974), Lower Saxony ( University Hanover ), North Rhine-Westphalia ( Bielefeld University from 1973) and Rhineland-Palatinate ( Trier University from 1975) as an attempt in the 1970s and partly into the 1990s. Students no longer took state exams, but instead took an intermediate examination (in Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg) or performance assessments during their training after completing their basic theoretical studies. The training brought together the university part and the practical part (concept of a close integration of theory and practice in terms of content and time). The one-stage legal training courses in the federal states sometimes differed considerably from one another. In the one-stage legal training in Hamburg (the so-called Hamburg model), for example, the social sciences were increasingly included in the training. With an amendment to § 5d DRiG in 1984, the two-stage legal training became mandatory again, and the single-stage reform training had to be phased out nationwide.

In Hamburg, the Reform Faculty II existed at the University of Hamburg until March 31, 1998. Students who started their studies in the Faculty of Law II before the summer semester of 1998 could still finish their studies.

Graduates of the one-step training

The following personalities are among the graduates who completed the one-step legal training from 1972 to the 1990s:

literature

  • Jürgen Blomeyer: On the “Munich model” for a one-stage legal training , Legal Review 1970, 296
  • Rudolf Wassermann : The reform is finally taking place , Die Zeit 8/1974
  • Fritz Haag: Legal training as a legislative experiment, legal training between experiment and tradition 1986, 11-24 (Writings of the Association for Legal Sociology, Vol. 11)
  • Hans Peter Bull : Reform is dead - long live reform! Legal training - reconsidered 1990, 1-7 (Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, Baden-Baden)
  • Filipp Bauer (University of Bremen, Central University Archive): Red judges in black robes? The one-stage legal training in the party clinch; PDF file , page 3
  • Robert Francke , Hans-Jürgen Hopp (ed.): One-stage legal training in Bremen. Evaluation of a reform model (Leuchtturm-Verlag, Alsbach / Bergstrasse 1986)
  • Briefing by the Federal Government - Report on legal training in the federal states (Drs. 7/3604, German Bundestag 7 May 1975 )

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Printed matter 6/1380, p. 5. German Bundestag, November 5, 1970, accessed on May 21, 2020 .
  2. ↑ Federal Law Gazette 1971 I 1557. Bundesanzeiger Verlag, September 15, 1971, accessed on May 21, 2020 .
  3. ↑ a b Wassermann, Die Zeit 8/1974.
  4. ↑ Drs. 8/3301. German Bundestag, October 29, 1979, accessed on May 25, 2020 .
  5. ↑ BGBl. 1980 I 1451. Bundesanzeiger Verlage, August 22, 1980, accessed on May 21, 2020 .
  6. ↑ BGBl. 1984 I 995. Bundesanzeiger Verlage, July 25, 1984, accessed on May 21, 2020 .
  7. ↑ Printed matter 10/1108, p. 7. German Bundestag, March 12, 1984, accessed on May 21, 2020 .
  8. ↑ GBl. 1974 429, GBl. 1975, 69
  9. ^ University of Augsburg - data ( Memento from December 9, 2008 in the Internet Archive )
  10. ^ Journal of Laws of 1977, 101
  11. ↑ HmbGVBl. April 30, 1973, p. 169.
  12. ^ GV NW 1974, 1026
  13. ↑ GVBl. 1975, 87
  14. ↑ Printed matter 10/1108, p. 7. German Bundestag, March 12, 1984, accessed on May 21, 2020 .
  15. ↑ Hamburg Citizenship: Citizenship printed paper 11/3997 . April 23, 1984 ( nrw.de [PDF; accessed May 24, 2020]).
  16. ↑ Hamburg Citizenship: Citizenship printed paper 11/3997 . April 23, 1984 ( nrw.de [PDF; accessed May 24, 2020]).
  17. ↑ Hamburg Citizenship: Communication from the Senate to the Citizenship Extension of the right house of the University of Hamburg . June 28, 2000 ( buergerschaft-hh.de [PDF; accessed on May 24, 2020]).
  18. ↑ Hamburg Citizenship: Illegal practice in performance assessments at the Faculty of Law at the University of Hamburg (Citizenship document 16/3731) . February 1, 2000 ( buergerschaft-hh.de [PDF; accessed on May 24, 2020]).