Appointment representatives in Hamburg, Berlin, Bremen and the surrounding area An offer for colleagues As appointment representatives, we are happy to represent other lawyers – albeit on short notice – at court appointments in Hamburg, Berlin, Bremen and the surrounding area. Our law firm can offer technically competent representation with a large number of lawyers specialized in individual fields (rental and real estate law, inheritance law, labor law, family law, traffic law and food and beverage law). What we offer you: Committed representation of you and your client by an expert lawyer tailored to your needs. A written appointment report for the next business day, containing the course of the hearing, judicial information, your own assessments and predictions. For this we need A copy of the file (almost as a PDF or simply by fax) A power of attorney (you can find this here) Your specifications for an amicable resolution of possible disputes in case of agreement Required time to get to know the file Where we represent you Your representation Litigation before the following local and regional courts We open: Hamburg District Court, Hamburg District Court, Hamburg Family Court, Hamburg Labor Court, Hamburg District Court, Berlin District Court, Berlin Family Court, Berlin Labor Court, Berlin District Court, Bremen District Court, Bremen District Court, Bremen Family Court, Bremen Labor Court, Costs of our representation Appointment representation of other lawyers is generally based on fee-sharing and this includes the services we offer. Travel expenses or daily and absence allowances are not collected. Please note our information on the subject: Sharing fees also does not mean losing fees What is an appointment agent or an appointment agent For non-lawyers, here is a brief explanation of what an appointment agent actually is and why one is needed like this. Requirement of appointment representative If a lawsuit has to be filed, the local jurisdiction of the court in civil cases (you have to file the lawsuit and then hear the case) is based on §§ 12 ff ZPO. This is usually the place of residence for natural persons (individuals) or the place of work for legal entities (companies). In traffic accidents, the court in the region where the accident occurred is responsible (§ 32 ZPO). For criminal or administrative offenses such as speeding or other traffic offenses, jurisdiction depends on the scene of the incident. As the plaintiff/defendant/accused/defendant you generally cannot choose the location of the hearing, or you can choose it to a very limited extent. Costs of appointment representation Fee according to RVG The appointment representative or sub-authorized representative is entitled to the following fees according to the Lawyers’ Compensation Act (RVG): The appointment representative for private participation in the appointment is half of the processing fee to which the authorized representative is entitled according to law 3401 VV RVG amount. This is usually a fee of 1.3. In certain teams (e.g. when representing multiple clients, see No. 1008 VV RVG), this fee may also increase. In addition, the appointment representative receives an appointment fee in accordance with 3402 VV RVG in the amount of the appointment fee payable to the principal representative. The appointment agent or sub-agent regularly charges the following fees:
- Example:
0.65 3401 transaction fee i. V.m. 3100 VV RVG 1.2 Appointment fee No. 3402 i. V.m.3104 VV RVG
- Example:
0.8 Transaction Fee No. 3401 i. V.m. 3200 VV RVG 1.2 Appointment fee No. 3402 i. V.m. 3202 VV RVG fee sharing It is of course possible to deviate from the statutory charging rules listed above. It is now common practice in the legal profession for the principal agent and sub-agent to share all fees incurred. In our opinion, this is also appropriate, because the sub-authorized representative must recognize the file in order to ensure actual representation and manage the power of attorney as if it were his own attorney. Moreover, both the sub-authorized representative and the principal authorized representative are equally interested in resolving the dispute amicably. Sharing fees does not mean losing fees. In principle, the principal agent records the appointment and goes to the appointment, so the loss of fees is also tolerable since the time saved is much greater than the loss of fees. There are also a number of clusters where appointment and comparison fees are borne by both the primary agent and the sub-authorized agent and therefore must be refunded twice. Double appointment fee Even if a representative is appointed for the transaction, if the main representative attends the appointment together with the sub-authorized representative, an appointment fee will be charged from the authorized representative. This may be an actual appointment, such as taking external evidence and hearing witnesses near the principal authorized representative. The appointment fee also applies to the authorized representative if he reaches a written agreement with the competitor after the appointment (see Note 1 No. 1, No. 3104 VV RVG). However, it is more likely that the principal authorized representative has already had a meeting with the counterparty and has therefore already earned the appointment fee (see Preliminary 3 Paragraph 3 Var. 3 VV RVG). Double comparison fee The comparison fee is also double in most cases. The principal authorized representative, together with the subauthorized representative, may earn the settlement fee before, during and after the appointment. How can the primary authorized representative receive a pre-appointment and settlement fee alongside the sub-authorized representative? The legal representative earns the settlement fee before the appointment if he provides the appointment agent with instructions enabling the representative to conclude the contract accordingly at the time of the appointment. The settlement fee is almost always won because no one will send an appointment representative to a hearing without any settlement instructions. Similarly, there is sufficient cooperation before the appointment if the case representative participated in settlement negotiations that no longer led to any outcome before the appointment and the relevant agreement was reached only at the time of the appointment. This is because any participation in contract negotiations is sufficient to earn the settlement fee, unless the principal agent’s participation is the reason for the settlement (see No. 1000 VV RVG Note 2). However, this will not usually be the case. How can the principal agent earn settlement fees during the appointment and alongside the appointment agent? Through a simple and straightforward phone call. The case representative also participates in the settlement if the appointment representative consults his colleague by phone during a break in negotiations. Here too, the legal representative is charged a settlement fee for participating in the settlement negotiations and thus concluding these negotiations by telephone call with the appointment representative (see Munich Higher Regional Court, decision of 28 February 2007 – case number 11 W) 644/07). How can the main agency earn settlement fees together with the sub-agency after the appointment?
If the legal representative reaches a settlement pursuant to ZPO Chapter 278 Paragraph 6 after the appointment agent has negotiated a settlement offer at the time of appointment, both the principal authorized agent and the subauthorized agent each receive a settlement fee.
Refundability
If the need for an appointment representative is determined, all fees incurred through the appointment representation must also be reimbursed. This applies not only to the additional half procedural fee according to No. 3401 VV RVG, but also to double appointment and settlement fees (see Munich Higher Regional Court: decision of November 7th, 2007 – 11 W 1957/07). The need for an appointment representative is governed by Section 91 ZPO. The costs of the sub-authorized representative are necessary costs of the legal dispute insofar as the fees incurred saved the main authorized representative’s travel costs for appointments that would otherwise have been incurred (cf. BGH NJW 2003, 898). The costs of the sub-authorized person can exceed the saved travel costs by up to 10% (cf. BGH NJW 2003, 898). This case law corresponds to the case law on the reimbursement of the travel costs of the legal representative, because the legal representative may only travel if it can be assumed that the travel costs are not higher than the costs of a sub-authorized person plus 10% (see Zöller § 91 ZPO Rn. 13) . The extent to which the fees incurred are actually billed to the client, unless the other party has to pay for them, is left to the main representative.