Gün he , Philipp; Beh , Johanna; Thies, Leonie
A icle — Published Ve sion
Na iga ing Ju isdic ional Bounda ies: T adi ional Lawye s
s. Legal Tech Fi ms in he Ge man Legal Se ices Ma ke
Zei sch i ü Rech ssoziologie Zei sch i ü Rech ssoziologie
P o ided in Coope a ion wi h:
WZB Be lin Social Science Cen e
Sugges ed Ci a ion: Gün he , Philipp; Beh , Johanna; Thies, Leonie (2025) : Na iga ing Ju isdic ional
Bounda ies: T adi ional Lawye s s. Legal Tech Fi ms in he Ge man Legal Se ices Ma ke ,
Zei sch i ü Rech ssoziologie Zei sch i ü Rech ssoziologie, ISSN 2366-0392, De G uy e , Be lin,
Vol. 45, Iss. 1, pp. 144-172,
h ps://doi.o g/10.1515/z s-2025-2004
This Ve sion is a ailable a :
h ps://hdl.handle.ne /10419/315546.2
S anda d-Nu zungsbedingungen:
Die Dokumen e au EconS o dü en zu eigenen wissenscha lichen
Zwecken und zum P i a geb auch gespeiche und kopie we den.
Sie dü en die Dokumen e nich ü ö en liche ode komme zielle
Zwecke e iel äl igen, ö en lich auss ellen, ö en lich zugänglich
machen, e eiben ode ande wei ig nu zen.
So e n die Ve asse die Dokumen e un e Open-Con en -Lizenzen
(insbesonde e CC-Lizenzen) zu Ve ügung ges ell haben soll en,
gel en abweichend on diesen Nu zungsbedingungen die in de do
genann en Lizenz gewäh en Nu zungs ech e.
Te ms o use:
Documen s in EconS o may be sa ed and copied o you pe sonal
and schola ly pu poses.
You a e no o copy documen s o public o comme cial pu poses, o
exhibi he documen s publicly, o make hem publicly a ailable on he
in e ne , o o dis ibu e o o he wise use he documen s in public.
I he documen s ha e been made a ailable unde an Open Con en
Licence (especially C ea i e Commons Licences), you may exe cise
u he usage igh s as speci ied in he indica ed licence.
h p://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/4.0
Zei sch i ü Rech ssoziologie 2025; 45(1): 144–172
Philipp Gün he *, Johanna Beh , Leonie Thies
Na iga ing Ju isdic ional Bounda ies:
T adi ional Lawye s s. Legal Tech Fi ms in
he Ge man Legal Se ices Ma ke
Die Bewäl igung ju isdik ionelle
Be u skon lik e: Die Anwal scha im
We bewe b mi Legal Tech-Un e nehmen au
dem deu schen Rech sdiens leis ungsma k
h ps://doi.o g/10.1515/z s-2025-2004
Abs ac : The ecen ise o legal ech i ms has led o signi ican changes in he
Ge man legal se ices ma ke , challenging he quasi-monopoly o adi ional
lawye s. Ou pape explo es his e ol ing ela ionship be ween legal ech i ms
and adi ional lawye s in Ge many, ocusing on how hese g oups compe e, coop-
e a e, and o ge dis inc p o essional iden i ies. D awing on And ew Abbo ’s heo y
o p o essions, we examine whe he he e is a ju isdic ional con lic be ween
hem, i. e., whe he hey compe e o he same wo k- ela ed asks. By conduc ing
semi-s uc u ed in e iews wi h indi iduals wo king in he ield and a documen
analysis o ele an public s a emen s and legal ex s, we ind ha he e is a leas
some deg ee o ju isdic ional con lic , albei limi ed o a speci ic segmen o he
legal se ices ma ke , pa icula ly enancy law. In addi ion, legal ech i ms ha e
de eloped wo k p ac ices ha di e signi ican ly om hose o adi ional lawye s,
emphasizing au oma ed wo k lows and la gely eschewing in-pe son consul a ions.
These no el p ac ices ha e also led o he eme gence o a new iden i y o legal
ech en ep eneu s, one ha emphasizes en ep eneu ship and consume ad o-
cacy. Despi e he di e ences and con lic s, he e cu en ly appea s o be a coop-
e a i e di ision be ween adi ional lawye s and legal ech companies, sugges ing
unc ional in e dependence in ce ain ma ke segmen s.
2025
*Ko espondenzau o : Philipp Gün he , WZB Be lin Social Science Cen e , Law and Go e nance in he
Con ex o Social Inequali ies, Reichpie schu e 50, D-10785 Be lin, E-Mail: [email p o ec ed]
Johanna Beh , Uni e si y o Lausanne, Facul y o Social and Poli ical Sciences, Ins i u e o Social
Sciences, Géopolis, Rue cen ale 30 1022 cha annes p ès enens, 1015, Lausanne, Swi ze land,
h ps://o cid.o g/0009-0000-9930-3439
Leonie Thies, Uni e si y o Ox o d, Cen e o C iminology, The Facul y o Law, Uni e si y o Ox o d,
S C oss Road, OX1 3UL, Ox o d, Uni ed Kingdom
Open Access. © 2025 he au ho (s), published by De G uy e . This wo k is licensed unde he
C ea i e Commons A ibu ion 4.0 In e na ional License.
Na iga ing Ju isdic ional Bounda ies 145
Zusammen assung: De ak uelle Au schwung on Legal Tech-Un e nehmen ha zu
e heblichen Umwälzungen au dem deu schen Rech sdiens leis ungsma k ge üh
und s ell dami das Quasi-Monopol de Anwal scha in F age. Diese Bei ag
un e such die Beziehung zwischen Legal-Tech-Fi men und kon en ionellen
Anwäl *innen in Deu schland und konzen ie sich dabei au die A und Weise, wie
diese G uppen mi einande konku ie en, koope ie en und un e schiedliche be u -
liche Iden i ä en he ausbilden. Au de G undlage on And ew Abbo s Theo ie de
Be u e wi d dabei analysie , ob es zwischen diesen G uppen einen sogenann en
„ju isdik ionellen Kon lik “ gib , das heiß ob sie um dieselben A bei sbe eiche kon-
ku ie en. Die Auswe ung on semi-s uk u ie en Expe *innenin e iews mi
Pe sonen, die in diesem Be eich ä ig sind, und eine Dokumen enanalyse ele an-
e ö en liche S ellungnahmen und ju is ische Tex zeigen, dass es zumindes ein
gewisses Maß an Ju isdik ionskon lik en gib , wenn auch nu in einem beg enz en
Segmen des Rech sdiens leis ungsma k es, insbesonde e im Mie ech . Da übe
hinaus haben Legal Tech-Fi men A bei sme hoden en wickel , die sich deu lich on
denen he kömmliche Anwäl *innen un e scheiden, indem sie den Schwe punk
au au oma isie e A bei sabläu e legen und pe sönliche Be a ungsgesp äche wei -
gehend e meiden. Diese neua igen P ak iken haben auch zu En s ehung eine
neuen Iden i ä ü Legal Tech-Un e nehme *innen ge üh , die das Un e nehme -
um und Ve b auche schu z in den Vo de g und s ell . T o z de Un e schiede und
Kon lik e schein es eine A bei s eilung zwischen adi ionellen Anwäl *innen und
Legal-Tech-Un e nehmen zu geben, was au eine unk ionale In e dependenz in
bes imm en Ma k segmen en hindeu e .
Keywo ds: Legal Tech, Sociology o Law, P o essions, Ju isdic ional Con lic s, Legal
Ma ke , Lawye s
In ecen yea s, legal ech companies ha e become an impo an pa o he Ge man
legal landscape. Ini ially, hese i ms ocused hei e o s on specialized a eas o
law, such as enancy law and ai passenge igh s. Howe e , legal ech i ms a e
inc easingly anscending hese bounda ies and making in oads in o a wide ange
o legal a eas and applica ions (Qua ch & Engelha d 2021: 38). Consequen ly, he
e m “legal ech” has become some hing o a buzzwo d (Wagne 2020: 5). Ou wo k
aims o enhance he academic unde s anding o his e ol ing phenomenon.
Cen al o his ans o ma ion a e he digi al ools de eloped by legal ech
i ms, which p omise o b idge he gap be ween he adi ional legal p o ession
and he digi al ealm. Legal ech companies claim ha hey enable ci izens o
con enien ly pu sue speci ic claims h ough use - iendly online po als, he eby
emo ing ba ie s o en y and educing o e all cos s. Howe e , his phenomenon
146 Philipp Gün he e al.
has also aised conce ns, pa icula ly among adi ional lawye s, who a e wo ied
abou he u u e o hei quasi-monopoly in he Ge man legal se ices ma ke . As a
esul , ba associa ions ha e accused legal ech companies o p io i izing p o i o e
he undamen al “co e alues” o he legal p o ession, including independence and
e hics o e me e p o i maximiza ion (BRAK 2020). The con lic be ween he wo
p o essions is so c ucial because i has a - eaching implica ions o he u u e o
he legal p o ession, po en ially ede ining he ole o lawye s– o e en ques ioning
hei con inued necessi y– in a apidly digi ising landscape. As a esul , ba associa-
ions ha e iled mul iple lawsui s agains legal ech companies and hei p ac ices in
an a emp o de ine which legal se ices can only be pe o med by a human lawye
and which can be handled by machine lea ning algo i hms (Rehage 2023). Al hough
a new law was in oduced in 2021 o egula e legal ech companies and align hei
o ganisa ional s uc u e wi h exis ing egula ions o legal p ac i ione s (Glusdak &
Scholz 2023: 68), i is unce ain whe he he go e nmen has succeeded in c ea ing
a le el playing ield be ween he wo p o essions.
The aim o his pape is h ee old: Fi s , we wan o explo e he e ol ing land-
scape o he legal se ices ma ke in Ge many by examining whe he he a o emen-
ioned dispu e be ween adi ional lawye s and legal ech i ms is undamen ally
a ju isdic ional con lic . A ju isdic ional con lic occu s when wo o mo e p o es-
sional g oups compe e o au ho i y in a pa icula a ea o expe ise. This concep
s ems om And ew Abbo ’s heo y o p o essions, which posi s ha a gi en p o-
ession is no cha ac e ized by speci ic ai s bu a he by how i in e ac s and
compe es wi h o he p o essions (Abbo 1986, 1988). In his con ex ,de e mining
whe he such a con lic exis s will help cla i y whe he legal ech i ms should be
ecognized as a dis inc p o ession wi hin he legal ield. Second, we wan o u he
in es iga e he possibili y ha legal ech en ep eneu s ha e a no el p o essional
iden i y by examining hei wo k p ac ices, i. e., how hey app oach he wo k ha
adi ional lawye s also pe o m. Finally, we will examine whe he hese g oups
ha e se led in o a new a angemen and whe he such a se lemen is likely o
pe sis o he o eseeable u u e.
Ou o e all hesis is ha legal ech companies ha e eme ged as a p o ession
dis inc om adi ional lawye s in Ge many and ha e success ully engaged he
la e in a ju isdic ional con lic . This con lic has mani es ed in wo p ima y ways:
i s , h ough in ense public opposi ion and a gumen s om ba associa ions
agains legal ech i ms, and second, mo e signi ican ly, h ough he lodging o law-
sui s agains hese companies, which ha e la gely been unsuccess ul o he ba
associa ions. This con lic has been esol ed h ough a di ision o labou in which
bo h p o essions a e inc easingly unc ionally in e dependen , al hough he e
a e ongoing dispu es. Mo eo e , gi en he apid digi al de elopmen s, he cu en
a angemen may become enuous in he coming yea s.
Na iga ing Ju isdic ional Bounda ies 147
This s udy is he i s o he examine eme gence o legal ech companies and
hei ju isdic ional con lic s wi h adi ional lawye s in he con ex o he Ge man
legal se ices ma ke . The e is ex ensi e p e ious esea ch on he ole o legal p o-
essionals and he impac o digi iza ion on hei wo k p ac ices (Fenwick & Ve -
meulen 2019; Susskind 2010; Susskind & Susskind 2023), bu he con ibu ions a -
ge ing speci ic na ional legal se ices ma ke s ha e la gely ocused on Anglophone
o No dic coun ies (K onblad & Jensen 2023; Sako e al.2022). Fu he mo e, while
he e a e a numbe o s udies on he ise o Ge man legal ech companies om
he pe spec i es o poli ical science (Rehde e al.2021; an El en & Rehde 2022),
economics (Kind e al.2019; Mina e al.2022) and doc inal legal esea ch (Völz-
mann 2020), he e is li le socio-legal esea ch a ailable (Gün he & W ase 2023),
especially in he a ea o he sociology o p o essions. This pape he e o e aims
o ill his esea ch gap and expand he li e a u e on how p o essions in he legal
ield adap o digi al ans o ma ion. Fu he mo e, he p o essional dispu es a ising
om digi aliza ion in he legal ield o e aluable insigh s ha can be applied o
o he p o essional domains.
In he ollowing, we begin by ou lining ou heo e ical amewo k, summa iz-
ing Abbo ’s heo y o ju isdic ional con lic and wo k p ac ices. We hen desc ibe
ou me hods be o e u ning o ou analysis. Finally, we conclude he s udy by sum-
ma izing ou hesis and discussing i s implica ions o he u u e.
Theo e ical aming
Con a y o he con en ional iewpoin in he sociology o p o essions, which ends
o highligh speci ic ai s o occupa ional g oups (K i ze 1999: 716), Abbo ’s heo y
o p o essions (Abbo 1986, 1988) o e s a mo e nuanced pe spec i e. This heo y
is g ounded in wo co e concep s: Fi s , p o essional p ac ice in ol es ongoing
ju isdic ional dispu es be ween occupa ional g oups ying o con ol o e speci ic
wo k- ela ed asks (Abbo 1988: 59; T osow 2001: 2). Second, occupa ional g oups
ans o m hese asks in o “p o essional p oblems” h ough h ee speci ic p o-
cesses– which Abbo cha ac e izes as diagnosis, ea men , and in e ence (Abbo
1988: 40–52). The abili y o a p o ession o asse a new ju isdic ional claim signi -
ican ly hinges on whe he i holds a compe i i e ad an age in any o hese cha ac-
e is ics. We will b ie ly discuss hese wo key ideas below.
148 Philipp Gün he e al.
Ju isdic ional con lic s
Ju isdic ional claims, as a gued by Abbo , lie a he hea o occupa ional compe i ion
wi hin p o essional ields. Acco ding o him, “in e p o essional ela ions a e po en-
ially he cen al ea u e o p o essional de elopmen ” (Abbo 1986: 189). A ho ough
unde s anding o p o essions’ iden i y and e olu ion hus depends on g asping he
con lic s among a ious occupa ional g oups o es ablish and main ain con ol o e
speci ic wo k- ela ed asks and esponsibili ies (F eidson 1989: 425; Saks 2010: 895).
Abbo emphasizes ha ju isdic ional bounda ies and social en i ies a e mu u-
ally cons i u i e (Abbo 1995: 860). Ra he han bounda ies s ic ly p eceding social
p ocesses, hese bounda ies a e ac i ely shaped and ein o ced h ough social p ac-
ices and p o essional in e ac ions. Hence, whene e a new ju isdic ional bounda y
is d awn, “a p o ession asks socie y o ecognize i s cogni i e s uc u e h ough
exclusi e igh s” (Abbo 1988: 59). These exclusi e igh s a e es ablished and main-
ained h ough social p ocesses and encompass aspec s such as sole p ac ice p i -
ileges, con ol o e public paymen s, au onomy in employmen , and au ho i y in
aining, ec ui men , and licensing (Abbo 1988: 59).
Ju isdic ional bounda ies a e ypically claimed be o e di e en audiences, such
as he s a e, he public, o he wo kplace (Abbo 1986: 191). A signi ican po ion o
p o essional ac i i y in ol es ha monizing hese h ee ealms o ju isdic ion (Abbo
1988: 191). Whe he o no a claim o ju isdic ion will endu e o an ex ended pe iod
o ime in pa depends on he audience o which he claim is made. In gene al, suc-
cess ul claims in on o he s a e (such as hose ensh ined in laws o cou ulings)
a e mo e du able han hose ha a e asse ed in on o he public o in he wo k-
place. Mo eo e , ju isdic ions can only be p ecisely dema ca ed in he legal sphe e,
while hey a e only mode a ely de ined in he public sphe e, and equen ly qui e
ambiguous wi hin he p o essional wo kspace (Abbo 1986: 191). De ining ju isdic-
ion wi h p ecision is c ucial, as ague desc ip ions can lead o ju isdic ional con lic s
and p o ide oppo uni ies o newcome s o asse igh s, po en ially unde mining
es ablished bounda ies (K onblad & Jensen 2023: 101; Noo deg aa 2020: 206–207).
P o essions can esol e ju isdic ional con lic s h ough se lemen s. These can
esul in a wide a ie y o ou comes. Acco ding o Abbo , besides he claim o ull
and inal ju isdic ion, compe ing p o essions can se le hei claims by eso ing o
me hods like subo dina ion, di ision o labou , sha ing p ac ice a eas, in ellec ual
o ad iso y con ol, and ask ju isdic ion based on clien s when clea bounda ies
canno be main ained o p e en o e lap (Abbo 1988: 69). Ne e heless, i is c ucial
o s ess ha he pu sui o ull ju isdic ional con ol– i. e., a p o essional monop-
oly– is he p ima y objec i e o mos p o essions, as such claims a e ypically
unde pinned by legal no ms ha es ic o he occupa ions om compe ing o he
ele an wo k and “shape he e y public idea o he asks ha he p o ession does”
Na iga ing Ju isdic ional Bounda ies 149
(Abbo 1988: 71). This is especially ue o he legal p o ession, which s i es o
exclusi i y o ull ju isdic ion by claiming supe io compe ence (Moo head 2014:
7–14) and is s ic ly go e ned by go e nmen egula ions as well as sel - egula ion,
compliance wi h which is moni o ed by p o essional associa ions (Abbo 1988: 106;
Noo deg aa 2011: 468). In eali y, howe e , ull and inal ju isdic ion is a ely held
by a single p o ession– e en in he legal domain (F ancis 2020: 72; Walke 2004:
262–263). Indeed, many p o essions ha e some con ol bu a e no ully dominan
in hei espec i e ju isdic ions (Abbo 1986: 191). Mo eo e , e en long-s anding
monopolis ic claims o ju isdic ion a e no in ini e and may be challenged i en i-
onmen al shocks occu (Abbo 1986: 192–193).
Wo k p ac ices
In addi ion o ju isdic ional claims, a p o ession is also cha ac e ized by how i
applies i s speci ic knowledge in p ac ice. Thus, he iden i y o a p o ession is de e -
mined by i s (con en ious) ela ionships wi h o he occupa ional g oups as well as
he wo k p ac ices ha dis inguish i om o he p o essions (K onblad & Jensen
2023: 101; Reay e al.2017: 1045–1046). Wo k p ac ices a e cha ac e ized by Abbo
h ough h ee s eps: diagnosis, ea men , and in e ence (Abbo 1988: 40–52).
Diagnosis, ea men , and in e ence a e he h ee dis inc ye in e ela ed ools
o how a p o ession subjec i ely add esses p oblems and ansla es hem in o
wo k-speci ic asks ha a e exclusi e o hei ju isdic ion. This sequence o clas-
si ying p oblems (diagnosis), analysing hem (in e ence), and hen aking ac ion
( ea men ) “embodies he cul u al logic o p o essional p ac ice” (Abbo 1988: 40).
In he i s s ep, diagnosis e e s o he iden i ica ion and ca ego iza ion o p oblems
wi hin a pa icula domain. In o de o add ess he p oblem app op ia ely, any ele-
men s ha all ou side he ju isdic ion o he espec i e p o ession a e emo ed–
including emo ional o inancial conside a ions ela ed o he indi idual in ol ed
(Abbo 1988: 41). While diagnosis ca ego izes in o ma ion in o a p o ession’s knowl-
edge sys em, “ ea men b ings ins uc ions back ou om i ” (Abbo 1988: 40). In
his sense, ea men is conce ned wi h classi ying a sys em o a ious solu ions o
he p oblem. Due o heu is ics inhe en in each p o ession, di e en p oblems o en
ecei e he same ea men i hey sha e a common cha ac e is ic. Thus, he ul i-
ma e aim o e e y p o ession is o econcile he di e ging diagnosis and ea men
classi ica ions (Abbo 1988: 45). Las ly, in e ence comes in o play “when he connec-
ion be ween diagnosis and ea men is obscu e” (Abbo 1988: 49). The p edomi-
nance and na u e o in e ence ha e an impac on he main enance o ju isdic ional
bounda ies and he legi imacy o p o essions (Abbo 1988: 51). I in e ence is needed
in i ually all cases, i is di icul o legi imize a p o ession. Con e sely, i in e ence
150 Philipp Gün he e al.
is la gely elimina ed, he p o ession becomes p one o being eplaced by au oma-
ion (K onblad & Jensen 2023: 102). I , o example, a sys em using sophis ica ed
a i icial in elligence algo i hms could eliably p edic he chances o a claim being
success ully en o ced in cou , and e en o e o w i e he ele an b ie s, i would
aise ques ions abou he con inued necessi y and au ho i y o he legal p o ession.
Me hods
The analysis is based on semi-s uc u ed expe in e iews and a documen analysis
d awing on case law and he s a emen s om Ge man p o essional legal associa-
ions. The ele an empi ical ma e ial on legal ech i ms was collec ed as pa o
a esea ch p ojec in es iga ing access o jus ice o ci izens o Be lin. O e all, we
ca ied ou 41 semi-s uc u ed in e iews wi h legal expe s and pe sons wo king
in counselling o ganisa ions in he ields o Ge man consume law and enancy law
be ween Ap il and July 20211.
Ou o he 41 in e iews, we conduc ed eigh wi h legal ech en ep eneu s and
lawye s specialized in legal echnology. These included in e iews wi h ep esen -
a i es o legal ech i ms ope a ing in he ield o enancy law and ai passenge
igh s law in Ge many. While eigh in e iews p o ide only limi ed insigh s om
he legal ech p o essional pe spec i e, i is impo an o no e ha he pool o eli-
gible in e iew pa ne s in his ield is ela i ely small. Because hese companies
a e ech companies as much as legal ones, a g ea numbe o hei employees a e IT
p o essionals. While i could be in e es ing o in e iew hose who do he daily wo k
o de eloping he so wa e and c ea ing algo i hms, he answe s hey could p o ide
would add ess o he esea ch ques ions conce ned wi h he ac ual p ac ices o dig-
i aliza ion o legal con lic s. In o de o lea n abou he ela ionship be ween legal
ech o ganisa ions and he adi ional legal ield, we spoke o he key ac o s who
a e he main d i e s o he s a -ups and hus gained aluable insigh s in o hei
sel - ep esen a ion and sel -image.
To be e unde s and how legal ech en ep enue s a e pe cei ed by mo e a-
di ional ac o s, we analysed ou 33 u he in e iews wi h judges, judicial o ice s,
lawye s and s a o independen ad ice o an i-disc imina ion o ices.2 While he
1 The in e iews a e pa o he esea ch p ojec “Acess o Jus ice in Be lin” a he Be lin Social
Science Ins i u e (WZB) led by Michael W ase.
2 The in e iews we e conduc ed wi h judges om dis ic cou s (“Am sge ich e”), which ha e
ju isdic ion o handle an ex ensi e a ay o legal issues and a e ypically he lowes ie o he
judicial sys em in Ge many.
Na iga ing Ju isdic ional Bounda ies 151
in e iews wi h non-legal- ech p o essionals did no ocus solely on legal ech issues,
we always included ques ions abou hei pe spec i e on he ole o legal ech in
hei daily wo k. Judges, landlo d, and enan lawye s we e especially amilia wi h
legal ech mechanisms and sha ed hei iews on hem.
In o de o guide ou in e iews, we c ea ed a p oblem-cen ed amewo k
h ough a deduc i e app oach, d awing on insigh s acqui ed in bo h he ongoing
ieldwo k and ex ensi e li e a u e esea ch. We asked ques ions on how he in e -
iewees’ p o essional ca ee s de elop, on hei mo i a ions, on hei daily wo k, on
he issues hey see when i comes o accessing jus ice and on wha hey hink could
imp o e he issues hey men ioned. This app oach helped us o engage wi h he
in e p e a i e pa e ns a icula ed by he expe s in dep h. We conduc ed mos o he
in e iews online due o he COVID-19 pandemic. Typically, each in e iew in ol ed
wo esea che s engaging wi h a single in e iewee o 60-90 minu es. Be o e eco d-
ing, we ob ained w i en consen om all pa icipan s, who con i med hei willing-
ness o pa icipa e and consen ed o da a p ocessing. The eco ded in e iews we e
subsequen ly ansc ibed and subjec ed o anonymiza ion, while ideo eco dings
we e secu ely e ased. These ansc ip ions unde wen a quali a i e coding p ocess,
meaning we applied a combina ion o deduc i e and induc i e analysis, acili a ed
by he use o MAXQDA so wa e (Kucka z & Rädike 2022; Rädike & Kucka z 2019).
This sys ema ic app oach o collec ing and analyzing in e iew da a se es
as he ounda ion o ou b oade analysis o he g owing impo ance and unde -
lying con lic s su ounding legal ech i ms. Ra he han elying solely on expe
in e iews, we combined hese insigh s wi h a comp ehensi e documen analysis
o egula o y ma e ials, o icial epo s, cou decisions, and s a emen s om p o-
essional legal associa ions. All documen s we e sys ema ically e iewed o iden i y
ele an e e ences o ju isdic ional claims and con lic indica o s– such as p ess
s a emen s by lawye s’ associa ions ha emphasised he monopoly o lawye s and
insis ed ha legal ech should be mo e igh ly egula ed. This allowed us o com-
plemen he in e iew da a and de elop a comp ehensi e pic u e o he egula o y
landscape.
Analysis and indings
In he ollowing analysis, we will a emp o empi ically ace he esponse o he
wo con lic ing p o essions a hand– adi ional lawye s and legal ech i ms. We
will conduc he analysis in a quasi-ch onological o de , beginning wi h he s a us
quo o he legal p o ession and how he g ip o Ge man lawye s on hei ju isdic ion
has ecen ly been loosened. We will hen examine he ise o he compe ing p o es-
158 Philipp Gün he e al.
Al hough legal ech i ms and adi ional lawye s ha e de eloped dis inc p o-
essional iden i ies and wo k p ac ices, his does no necessa ily mean ha he e is
no ju isdic ional dispu e be ween hese g oups. Bo h g oups ha e sepa a e iden i-
ies and p o essional modes, bu hei ju isdic ions s ill o e lap o some ex en and
a e he e o e subjec o ju isdic ional claims om bo h sides. This can be explained
by wo ac o s. Fi s ly, diagnosis, ea men , and in e ence di e be ween legal ech
i ms and adi ional lawye s, wi h mo e p onounced di e ences being e iden
in ce ain a eas. Howe e , in o he domains, he app oaches o bo h p o essions
ha dly di e a all (K onblad & Jensen 2023: 108). Thus, i canno be a gued ha
bo h p o essions wo k en i ely sepa a ely. Secondly, bo h p o essions a e compe -
ing o a signi ican po ion o he same pool o clien s seeking o en o ce a speci ic
claim. Fo ins ance, he e a e bo h legal ech i ms and adi ional lawye s ha a e
o e ing o en o ce en con ol claims in on o Ge man cou s (Legal Tech Expe
C). Consequen ly, he e is an appa en a ea o con lic , which we will examine mo e
closely in he ollowing sec ion.
A ea o con lic
Ju isdic ional con lic s in ol e claims o a pa icula ype o wo k (Abbo 1988: 59).
Thus, when wo p o essions compe e o ce ain wo k- ela ed asks ha hey can
bo h pe o m– by using di e en wo k p ac ices– he e is a ju isdic ional con-
lic . The a ea o con lic always conce ns he subjec i e quali y o he wo k (Abbo
1986: 190), i. e., how each p o ession unde s ands and cons uc s i s app oaches o
sol ing he ele an wo k- ela ed asks. To examine how Ge man legal ech compa-
nies compe e wi h adi ional lawye s, we will concen a e on enancy law because
ha is whe e he ju isdic ional con lic is mos appa en .
The objec i e aspec o enancy law in he Ge man legal se ices ma ke a he
cu en momen can gene ally be summa ized as he o ganisa ional challenge o
managing a ense housing ma ke ha is cha ac e ized by a low supply o en al
uni s and cons an ly ising en s– especially in high agglome a ion a eas (P.B ei-
denbach e al. 2022: 1). T adi ional lawye s ansla e his objec i e aspec in o
subjec i e wo k asks, i. e., hey use hei specialized legal knowledge, wi hin he
amewo k de ined by he s a e, o assis ci izens who wish o en o ce a pa icula
enancy claim. This ype o wo k ypically consis s o legal ad ice, ou -o -cou ep-
esen a ion, and ep esen a ion and en o cemen o claims in cou . In he case o
en o cing he Ge man en con ol law, which aims o cu b en inc eases in igh
housing ma ke s (A z 2015: 1575–1576), his en ails mee ing and consul ing wi h
he clien se e al imes, possibly inspec ing he apa men , co esponding wi h he
landlo d, and iling a lawsui .
Na iga ing Ju isdic ional Bounda ies 159
The wo k p ac ices o legal ech i ms di e signi ican ly om hose o adi-
ional lawye s (K onblad & Jensen 2023: 106–114). I a clien seeking o en o ce he
en con ol laws we e o hi e a legal ech i m, he e would likely be no ace- o- ace
mee ings and mos communica ion would be limi ed o email (Legal Tech Expe
A). Ye , he e is a ju isdic ional con lic as bo h adi ional law i ms and legal ech
i ms compe e o clien s seeking o en o ce en con ol claims. In o de o u he
his con lic , we mus de e mine wha ype o ju isdic ional con lic has occu ed.
Acco ding o Abbo , he e a e h ee ypes o ju isdic ional con lic s (Abbo
1986: 195). The i s ype o con lic occu s when a ju isdic ion is expanding, ei he
quan i a i ely o quali a i ely. A ju isdic ion is expanding quan i a i ely i i is able
o o e mo e se ices in p e iously unclaimed ma ke s, while a quali a i e expan-
sion signi ies ha a ju isdic ion is p o essionalizing and he eby ypically being
domina ed by big business o go e nmen wo k (Abbo 1986: 195). Rega ding he
en o cemen o en con ol claims, he e has been nei he a quan i a i e no a
quali a i e expansion. T adi ional lawye s ha e no expanded hei business in o
new a eas because he s a e has limi ed hei scope o p ac ice h ough legisla ion
(B üggemann 2020: 28–31). Al hough some law i ms ha e begun o explo e new
echnological a enues o se e hei clien s, hey a e s ill limi ed o he same h ee
basic unc ions– legal ad ice, ep esen a ion ou side cou , and en o cing claims
in cou . Fu he mo e, while he Ge man legal se ices ma ke has seen he eme -
gence o la ge law i ms in ecen decades (Luschin 2010: 30–33), hese i ms a e
mos ly ocused on comme cial law (JUVE 2023) and would a ely accep a p i a e
clien seeking o en o ce a small enancy law claim.
The second ype o ju isdic ional con lic a ises when cu en ju isdic ions
p o e inadequa e o sus ain a p o ession. This may lead o i s membe s seeking
al e na i e employmen op ions (Abbo 1986: 195). Again, his ype does no ade-
qua ely cap u e he con lic be ween Ge man legal ech i ms and con en ional
lawye s. The cu en ju isdic ion o Ge man lawye s is capable o suppo ing he
as majo i y o i s membe s, hough he e a e no able dispa i ies in sala y (Hies
& Gün ne 2023: 24). Ge many has a low unemploymen a e amongs lawye s, and
nume ous law i ms a e ac i ely seeking quali ied pe sonnel (Hies & Gün ne 2023:
23). Addi ionally, legal ech en ep eneu s who le adi ional law i ms o s a
hei own businesses likely did so because hey saw a mo e p o i able oppo uni y,
no jus because hei p e ious p o ession was inancially unsus ainable.
Finally, he en y o g oups o e ing equi alen se ices a lowe p ices ep esen s
he hi d ype o ju isdic ional con lic (Abbo 1986: 195), and is he ype mos likely o
i ou case o legal ech i ms con es ing he ju isdic ion o adi ional lawye s. As we
ha e desc ibed abo e, he newly es ablished business model adop ed by legal ech 2.0
i ms in Ge many– which is based on ac ing as a collec ion se ice en i y– allows he
i ms o o e much lowe p ices o clien s han he ees ypically cha ged by lawye s
160 Philipp Gün he e al.
(Wagne 2020: 3). Unde Ge man law, lawye s’ ees and disbu semen s a e p ecisely
egula ed, so lawye s canno unde cu each o he when cha ging clien s o ce ain
se ices.4 Mo eo e , e en i he lawye ’s ees a e kep o a minimum, he clien has
o pay an ad ance on he cou ees (Ma qua d 2022: 54) and aces he conside able
isk o ha ing o pay he en i e cou ees and he opposing lawye ’s ees i hey lose
he claim (G oß 2018: 310–311). Fo ins ance, i an indi idual wan s o en o ce a claim
wo h 250 eu os, hey isk incu ing cos s o a ound 500 eu os, depending on he
ci cums ances (Ha ung 2020: 8). Fu he mo e, consume s a e gene ally only willing
o pu sue a claim i he o al alue is abo e 2000 eu os (Va e od 2014: 37). This sen-
imen was echoed by a legal ech en ep eneu in he a ea o ai passenge igh s:
“The e was a p oblem wi h access o jus ice, because consume s simply said– hey,
I’m no a ionally in e es ed, why should I sue Ryanai and pu h ee hund ed, ou
hund ed eu os on he able when I wan wo hund ed and i y eu os, I’m jus no going
o do ha ” (Legal Tech En ep eneu B). The inancial obs acle a hand is known as
“ a ional disin e es ”, which e e s o he endency o indi iduals o e ain om pu -
suing damage o eimbu semen claims when he disad an age su e ed is minimal.
This is due o he pe cep ion ha he necessa y e o ou weighs he po en ial bene-
i s, om he pe spec i e o he inju ed pa y (Bundes egie ung 2018: 13).
A cen al componen o he business idea behind legal ech companies is o
coun e his a ional disin e es o consume s by o e ing hei packaged se ices
o a con ingency ee5 ha mus only be paid i he claim is success ully en o ced
(Kleine-Cosack 2022: 379–380). Un il 2021, when he new law on legal ech i ms was
adop ed, Ge man lawye s we e no allowed o o e con ingency ees, which is why
legal ech en ep eneu s ini ially chose o inco po a e hei companies as collec ion
se ice en i ies. As a esul , hey a ac ed a conside able sha e o ci izens who we e
seeking o en o ce hei enancy o ai passenge igh s claims a ma ginal cos –
which usually amoun s o 20 o 30 pe cen o he awa ded claim (Melle -Hannich
2023: 30).
4 Acco ding o Sec ion 49b, pa ag aph 1 o he Ge man Fede al Code o Lawye s (Bundes ech san-
wal so dnung– BRAO), “[i] is no pe missible o ag ee o o cha ge ees and expenses which a e
lowe han hose p o ided o in he Lawye s’ Remune a ion Ac (Rech sanwal s e gü ungsgese z),
unless o he wise p o ided in ha Ac .” T ansla ion p o ided by he Ge man Fede al Minis y o Jus-
ice, a ailable online: h ps://www.gese ze-im-in e ne .de/englisch_b ao/englisch_b ao.h ml#p0351
(las accessed: 7 Decembe 2023).
5 Acco ding o Sec ion 49b, pa ag aph 2 o he Ge man Fede al Code o Lawye s, con ingency
ees a e “[a]g eemen s on he basis o which emune a ion o i s amoun is made dependen on
he ou come o he case o he lawye ’s success, o based on which a lawye is paid pa o he
amoun eco e ed”. T ansla ion p o ided by he Ge man Fede al Minis y o Jus ice, a ailable
online: h ps://www.gese ze-im-in e ne .de/englisch_b ao/englisch_b ao.h ml#p0351 (las accessed:
7 Decembe 2023).
Na iga ing Ju isdic ional Bounda ies 161
On balance, legal ech companies ha e imp o ed access o speci ic claims in he
ield o enancy and consume law in he Ge man legal se ices ma ke by o e ing
hei “packages” a compa a i ely low cos s (Gün he & W ase 2023: 755). They ha e
also been quick o capi alize on a new Ge man law ha in oduced a model decla a-
o y judgmen ac ion and helped bundle housands o claims ela ed o he Volkswa-
gen emissions scandal (Klu h 2018: 403; an El en & Rehde 2022: 9). A leas o now,
legal ech companies a e s ill limi ed o o e ing hei se ices in speci ic a eas o
he law whe e app op ia e legal oppo uni y s uc u es exis and whe e hei algo-
i hms can classi y he ele an in o ma ion o he case (Gün he & W ase 2023: 750).
Howe e , a su ey o he exis ing legal ech 2.0 sec o in Ge many demons a es ha i
is no ope a ing in a niche bu a he is con inuously expanding (Mina e al.2022: 40).
In some legal ields, such as ai passenge igh s and en con ol law, legal ech i ms
a e likely o be among he mos p ominen epea playe s in Ge man ci il cou s.
Fo example, one judge es ima ed ha a leas 60 o 70 pe cen o all ai passenge
igh s cases a e iled h ough legal ech i ms (Dis ic Cou Judge D). In 2023, ai
passenge law claims inc eased by 80 pe cen o e he p e ious yea – la gely due o
legal ech companies, which has pu an eno mous s ain on he cou s esponsible o
adjudica ing hese claims (LTO 2024). This end highligh s an eme ging o e lap and
compe i ion be ween legal ech i ms and adi ional lawye s in speci ic a eas o legal
p ac ice (Kilian 2021a: 609), esul ing in an ac i e ju isdic ional con lic .
Ano he indica o o an ac i e ju isdic ional con lic is he p esence o com-
plain s by one p o essional g oup. Acco ding o Abbo , such complain s signi y wo
aspec s: “ i s , ha [ he p o essionals] conside he ju isdic ion impo an enough o
igh o i , and second, ha he ju isdic ion is open enough o in asion o encou age
poaching” (Abbo 1986: 202). In ou case, he e ha e been oci e ous complain s
and p o es s agains he ac ions o legal ech companies and he legal e o ms ha
ul ima ely legalized he companies’ business model. In pa icula , he p o essional
associa ions o lawye s– he Ge man Fede al Ba (BRAK) and he Ge man Ba Asso-
cia ion (DAV)– we e pa icula ly ocal du ing he deba e on he Legal Tech Ac o
2021. Despi e he dominan posi ion o con en ional lawye s in he Ge man legal
se ices ma ke , he g owing popula i y o legal ech companies has unse led he
adi ional playe s in he legal ield. BRAK and DAV we e especially c i ical o he
ac ha he new law would unde mine he lawye s’ monopoly. Acco ding o BRAK,
he new law h ea ened o “unde mine he co e alues o he legal p o ession and
hus he p inciples o he ule o law” (BRAK 2020). In addi ion, he legisla ion was
c i icized o legalizing he p ac ice o con ingency ees in Ge many and hus u he
opening he legal se ices ma ke o mo e malign ma ke o ces. Fo example, BRAK
a gued ha he in oduc ion o con ingency ees would lead o “con lic s o in e es
be ween lawye and clien , as he lawye becomes an in es o in he manda e and
hus a pa y o i ” (BRAK 2020).
162 Philipp Gün he e al.
Why did he p o essional associa ions exp ess such complain s, conside ing
ha legal ech companies p esen ly engage in di ec compe i ion almos only wi hin
highly specialized segmen s o he legal ma ke – segmen s o en o e looked o
inadequa ely se iced by adi ional legal p ac i ione s? BRAK’s appeal o he “p in-
ciples o he ule o law” can be explained on wo g ounds. Fi s , he legal p o ession
claims a special ype o exclusi i y (F ancis 2020: 71). The legal p o ession asse s
his exclusi i y as an au onomous ield by con olling he bounda ies o a “ ei ied”
no ma i e sys em (Da ies 2017: 28). Fo his eason, he p o es s ha e been so ocal,
e en hough he e ha e no ye been any signi ican economic losses o adi ional
lawye s. A 2021 su ey o lawye s has shown ha law i ms compe ing wi h legal
ech i ms ha e so a los ela i ely ew clien s (Kilian 2021b: 677). Ins ead, he e
has been “some loss o ac ual cul u al ju isdic ion” (Abbo 1986: 198) o he ea
ha he exis ing ju isdic ion will be challenged in he u u e on simila p emises.
Second, he p o essional associa ions’ complain s a e bo h a way o aming hei
sel -iden i y (“sel -cas ing”) and a mechanism o po aying he compe ing p o es-
sion (“al e cas ing”) (Buche e al.2016: 518). Fo one hing, lawye s sel -cas hei
au ho i a i eness by implici ly posi ioning hei own p o ession as he gua dian
o he “co e alues o he legal p o ession” and he ule o law. Addi ionally, hey
al e cas legal ech companies by p oblema izing hei business model and he eby
aiming o delegi imize hei posi ion in he legal ield (Buche e al.2016: 518).
Audiences
Whe he o no a ju isdic ional claim is success ul pa ly depends on he audience
be o e which he claim is made (Abbo 1986: 191). Typically, claims a e made be o e
he public, he s a e, o he wo kplace. In he ju isdic ional con lic su ounding
legal ech i ms, claims ha e been made in he public and he s a e a enas; speci -
ically, in he la e case, hey ha e been p esen ed du ing judicia y p oceedings.
Claims o ju isdic ion be o e he public we e made by bo h sides– by adi ional
lawye s and legal ech i ms. Lawye s p ima ily elied on hei p o essional associa-
ions o ad ance he claim ha legal ech i ms a e unde mining he legal p o ession
and he ule o law (see abo e). The ehemen public decla a ions om hese associa-
ions s em om a belie ha asse ing ju isdic ion is abou exe ing legi ima e con ol
o e a speci ic ype o wo k. This con ol means ha p o essionals ha e he eedom
o pe o m hei du ies as hey see i and he powe o exclude o he wo ke s i hey
conside i necessa y (Abbo 1988: 60). Thus, in o de o make a success ul ju isdic-
ional claim, a p o ession ha sees i sel as emba led mus make s ong p oclama-
ions abou he compe ing p o ession. This is especially ue because he na u e o he
discou se in he public a ena is pa icula ly limi ed and ends o be simplis ic (Abbo
Na iga ing Ju isdic ional Bounda ies 163
1988: 61). I ollows ha such claims in he public a ena a e somewha exagge a ed
and po ay he g oup’s own and he compe ing p o essions as mo e homogenous
han hey a e in eali y. This pa ly explains why opponen s o legal ech i ms ha e
been so ocal in hei complain s, e en hough he e a e many lawye s who bene i
om hese i ms by coope a ing wi h hem in one way o ano he (Kilian 2022: 40).
Legal ech i ms ha e also made hei case o he public, albei using di e en
ac ics: ad e ising. Abbo no es ha when new ma ke en an s o e equi alen
se ices a lowe p ices– he hi d ju isdic ional con lic ype– hey o en a ge
he public audience h ough ex ensi e ad e ising endea ou s (Abbo 1986: 195). As
legal ech companies a e no bound by he ela i ely s ic p ohibi ion on ad e is-
ing o lawye s in Ge many, hey ha e launched la ge-scale ad e ising campaigns
(Legal Tech En ep eneu B). Whe he hese campaigns ha e been success ul in he
sense ha he public now ully ecognizes legal ech i ms as pe o ming he same
asks as adi ional lawye s in Ge many– and hus accep s he new ju isdic ional
bounda ies– is di icul o gauge and he e o e emains o be seen. Ne e heless,
in a 2022 poll, mos o he popula ion exp essed a posi i e a i ude owa d legal
ech applica ions and hei po en ial o handle legal ma e s wi hou he need o
lawye s, using only digi al solu ions (Gebha d & Somme 2022: 23).
Al hough bo h adi ional lawye s and legal ech i ms made ju isdic ional
claims be o e di e en audiences, he s a e audience has p o ed o be he mos
impo an one. In he ju isdic ional con lic in he Ge man legal se ices ma ke , he
s a e audience has eme ged as pa amoun because i is he only audience ha can
modi y he s ic p o essional ules go e ning ju isdic ional bounda ies– which a e
ypically no subjec o apid change– ei he h ough new case law o legisla ion.
The cou s, which a e pa o he s a e audience (Abbo 1988: 62), ha e been mos
ins umen al in ecognizing he new ju isdic ional bounda ies. This is pa icula ly
ue o he Fede al Cou o Jus ice, Ge many’s highes ci il cou . Acco ding o one
o he en ep eneu s we in e iewed, legal ech companies ha e long ecognized
ha s a egic li iga ion is no only pa o hei business model bu also ele an o
secu ing hei ma ke posi ion (Legal Tech Expe B). Legal ech i ms a e willing o
li iga e small claims ha a e no no mally p o i able, h ough all judicial ins ances
in o de o uphold u he ju isdic ional bounda ies (Legal Tech En ep eneu B). In
2019, he Fede al Cou o Jus ice issued i s Lex oxI decision, in which i o he i s
ime a i med ha legal ech i ms a e indeed ope a ing wi hin he legal manda e
g an ed by he ules on collec ion se ice en i ies, he eby alida ing hei p ac-
ice o using con ingency ees and d awing up new ju isdic ional bounda ies. Since
hen, he Cou has epea edly con i med i s ela i ely libe al a i ude owa ds legal
ech companies in o he cases (Melle -Hannich 2023: 31).
I is also wo h no ing ha many o he lawsui s ha e been ini ia ed by lawye s’
associa ions in o de o limi he g ow h o legal ech companies. As a esul , adi-
164 Philipp Gün he e al.
ional lawye s and legal ech companies a e ying o appeal o judges, highligh ing
ha hey ega d he judicia y as a pa icula ly impo an audience in his ju isdic-
ional con lic . In an in e iew, he p esiden o BRAK explained he na u e o he
lawsui s agains legal ech companies: “Ou aim in hese lawsui s is o epea edly
de e mine in cou whe e we need o d aw he line, whe e we as a socie y alue he
in ol emen o a lawye and whe e a machine can ake o e asks” (Rehage 2023).6
Al hough he BRAK has been la gely unsuccess ul, as many ulings ha e a ou ed
legal ech companies, i con inues o y o in luence he s a e audience. In 2024,
he Ge man go e nmen ini ia ed a p ocess o c i ically e iew he 2021 Legal Tech
Ac . Du ing ha p ocess, he BRAK issued a s a emen in which i claimed ha he
exis ing Legal Tech Ac no only massi ely weakened he s a us o lawye s, bu is
also de imen al o consume p o ec ion (BRAK 2024: 3). The BRAK a gued ha
majo e o ms a e needed o p e en u he blu ing o he line be ween adi-
ional lawye s and collec ion se ice p o ide s (BRAK 2024: 4–5). The associa ion o
Ge man legal ech companies s ongly disag eed wi h his s a emen , poin ing ou
ha he BRAK’s asse ion ha legal ech companies a e de imen al o consume
p o ec ion con adic s he a ailable e idence (Legal Tech Ve band Deu schland
2024: 2–5). Thus, acco ding o he Ge man legal ech associa ion, he exis ing egu-
la ion should emain in place as i p o ides legal ce ain y o consume s and deb
collec ion en i ies. This case illus a es how he ju isdic ional con lic has become
pa icula ly salien , wi h bo h sides ac i ely a guing o e exis ing bounda ies and
how hey wan he nex i e a ion o he law o esol e he ju isdic ional con lic in
hei a ou .
Se lemen
Ju isdic ional dispu es a e esol ed h ough se lemen s. The ques ion emains
whe he he ecen ulings o he Fede al Cou o Jus ice and he subsequen in o-
duc ion o new legisla ion ha e esul ed in a se lemen ha will main ain s abili y
in he ield and de e challenges om any p o ession in he nea u u e. To assess
his, we mus iden i y he na u e o he se lemen eached. Acco ding o Abbo ’s
ypology, ju isdic ional se lemen s exis on a spec um anging om ull ju isdic-
ion, whe e he dominan p o ession exe s maximum con ol, o clien di e en ia-
ion, whe e i s in luence o e ju isdic ional bounda ies is mos diminished (Abbo
1988: 69).
6 T ansla ion p o ided by he au ho s.
Na iga ing Ju isdic ional Bounda ies 165
While mos p o essions s i e o ha e ull and inal claim o e one pa icula
ype o wo k, in ou case, Ge man lawye s’ monopoly on p o iding ce ain legal
se ices had been g adually e oded; his e en occu ed p io o he eme gence o
legal ech companies (Kleine-Cosack 2014: 5–7). Recen cou ulings and he 2021
Ac ha e u he chipped away a he adi ional lawye s’ ju isdic ional dominance
(Kleine-Cosack 2019: 6). Legisla o s’ mo i a ion behind he 2021 Ac was o le el
he playing ield o bo h legal ech companies and adi ional lawye s (Remme z
2023: 30). In p ac ice, his means ha he new law de ines he ole o collec ion
se ice en i ies mo e conc e ely (O e mann-Bu cka 2023: 109–111), and igh ens
he equi emen s o he egis a ion and ope a ion o legal ech companies. Con-
e sely, he law also pe mi s lawye s o cha ge con ingency ees– p e iously only
allowed o deb collec o s– al hough lawye s may no cha ge mo e han 2000
eu os in con ingency ees (Rücke & Bell 2022: 470). Mo eo e , he ban on li iga ion
unding o Ge man lawye s emains in place; li iga ion unding is only pe mi ed
in he con ex o ou -o -cou deb collec ion.
A p esen , bo h p o essions appea o ha e eached a common a angemen
akin o Abbo ’s concep o “in ellec ual ju isdic ion”, whe e “a p o ession e ains
con ol o he cogni i e knowledge o an a ea bu allows (o is o ced o allow) p ac-
ice on a mo e-o -less un es ic ed basis by se e al compe i o s” (Abbo 1988: 75).
While Ge man lawye s do no hold an absolu e monopoly o e he legal se ices
ma ke , hey emain he sole p o ession au ho ized o ep esen clien s in cou s,
he eby holding a unique posi ion as “independen agen [s] o he adminis a ion
o jus ice”. By con as , legal ech companies a e limi ed, as hey a e unable o o e
legal ad ice beyond basic deb collec ion p ocedu es (Lemke & Schmid 2023: 358).
In his sense, ully quali ied lawye s unde Ge man law e ain in ellec ual domi-
nance wi hin he ealms o legal ad ice and ep esen a ion in cou . This in ellec-
ual claim is also deeply oo ed in Ge man legal cul u e and is unlikely o change
in he nea u u e.
Howe e , he claim o in ellec ual ju isdic ion implies ha adi ional lawye s
could indeed exe a ce ain deg ee o con ol o e ma ke condi ions. While adi-
ional lawye s undoub edly possess signi ican p o essional p i ileges, ecen legal
de elopmen s ha e la gely legal ech companies and ailed o es ablish a uly equi-
able playing ield (Kilian 2022: 40–41). Acco ding o ecen cou ulings, he law
does no unila e ally p o ec lawye s om compe i ion om legal ech companies.
Ins ead, he cou s ha e emphasized ha he laws go e ning he legal p o ession
and he p o ision o legal se ices a e p ima ily in ended o p o ec indi iduals
seeking jus ice (Melle -Hannich 2023: 31; Remme z 2023: 49). Mo eo e , while he
2021 Ac echnically legalises he p ac ice o cha ging con ingency ees o bo h a-
di ional lawye s and legal ech companies, asymme ic ma ke condi ions emain,
as lawye s and legal ech en ep eneu s ace as ly di e en ba ie s o en y
166 Philipp Gün he e al.
(Kilian 2022: 40). On he one hand, becoming a ully quali ied lawye in Ge many
equi es he comple ion o a leng hy aining p og am, o en spanning nea ly a
decade, and adhe ence o s ic p o essional ules. On he o he hand, he es ablish-
men and ope a ion o a deb collec ion company equi es only 120 hou s o aining
and minimal p o essional licenses and obliga ions (Kilian 2022: 40). In his con ex ,
he DAV has s a ed ha al hough i is no opposed o legal ech applica ions in p in-
ciple, i demands ha such au oma ed legal se ices may only be o e ed by ully
ained lawye s (DAV 2019). In con as , he judges o he Fede al Cou o Jus ice
ha e con i med ha hey do no conside hese asymme ic ma ke condi ions o
be unlaw ul because he legisla o s can subjec adi ional lawye s and deb collec-
ion companies o di e en egula o y measu es, e en i hey ope a e in he same
ma ke . Howe e , hese skewed ma ke condi ions, a leas in some segmen s o he
Ge man legal se ices ma ke , unde mine he no ion ha adi ional lawye s ac u-
ally exe cise some kind o in ellec ual dominance ha deno es a deg ee o con ol–
beyond me e claims o cul u al ju isdic ion– o e p o essional bounda ies.
Ins ead o an in ellec ual ju isdic ion, he con lic be ween adi ional lawye s
and legal ech i ms is mo e likely esol ed h ough a di ision o labou se lemen .
This a angemen en ails a con lic being “ ollowed by di ision o he ju isdic ion
in o unc ionally in e dependen bu s uc u ally equal pa s” (Abbo 1988: 73).
Al hough legal ech companies and adi ional lawye s s ill o e compa able se -
ices in he same ma ke , hei se ices di e subs an ially when i comes o diag-
nosis, ea men , and in e ence (see abo e). In addi ion, legal ech companies do no
jus compe e wi h lawye s bu also depend on hem o en o ce claims in cou . Con-
e sely, lawye s a e inc easingly using legal ech ools o o ganize hei wo k lows
and a ac new clien s. As one legal ech en ep eneu we in e iewed pu i , legal
ech companies and lawye s a e no di ec compe i o s bu a e ins ead unc ionally
in e dependen collabou a o s in he same ma ke (Legal Tech En ep eneu A).
This inding con i ms ecen schola ship on ju isdic ional con ol ha p edic s ha
he impac o digi al echnologies– in line wi h connec i e p o essionalism (Noo -
deg aa 2020: 206)– ypically esul s in se lemen s by di ision o labou (Sako e
al.2022: 144).
The di ision o labou be ween adi ional lawye s and legal ech companies is
mo e s able in ce ain sec o s o he legal se ices ma ke and la gely depends on
he legal o ganisa ional o m and business model o he legal ech company (Rehde
e al.2023: 205–209). Fo example, in e media y pla o ms ha connec consume s
wi h quali ied lawye s end o os e a mu ually bene icial ela ionship ha does
no h ea en he business model o ei he pa y. Simila ly, adi ional law i ms ha
use ce ain digi al se ices o e ed by legal ech i ms o be e ad ise hei clien s
a e also mo e likely o collabo a e wi h hese i ms a he han compe ing wi h
hem. In con as , mo e comp ehensi e legal ech se ice p o ide s o e se ices
Na iga ing Ju isdic ional Bounda ies 167
ha compe e di ec ly wi h hose o some adi ional lawye s, po en ially dis up -
ing es ablished ju isdic ional bounda ies. Ne e heless, egula o y s anda ds may
encou age g ea e collabo a ion be ween hese wo se s o p o essionals. In pa icu-
la , legal ech companies can access ex e nal unding o de elop inno a i e busi-
ness models, a p i ilege ha law i ms a e excluded om. This asymme y may lead
o new o ms o collabo a ion while inc easing adi ional lawye s’ dependence on
legal ech, pa icula ly o clien acquisi ion and he managemen o s anda dised
p ocesses. A he same ime, comp ehensi e legal ech p o ide s s ill depend on con-
en ional law i ms o en o ce claims in cou s (Rehde e al.2023: 208). Howe e ,
some legal ech companies ha e add essed his dependency by se ing up hei own
law i ms, u he blu ing he lines be ween collabo a ion and compe i ion.
How long he cu en di ision o labou in he Ge man legal se ices ma ke
will las is a moo poin . Legal se lemen s achie ed h ough cou ulings o legis-
la ion end o be endu ing, ypically las ing 20 o 50 yea s (Abbo 1986: 191). In he
case o he Ge man legal se ices ma ke , a se lemen has been eached h ough
case law and legisla ion ha legi imises he ju isdic ional claims o legal ech com-
panies. Ne e heless, his se lemen is unlikely o emain s able o an ex ended
pe iod. Despi e passing he 2021 Ac , he p e ious Ge man go e nmen acknowl-
edged po en ial sho comings o he legisla ion and has ins uc ed he cu en leg-
isla u e o e iew he Ac and ela ed egula ions (Kilian 2022: 41). As we ha e ou -
lined abo e, his ongoing e iew, ini ia ed in 2024, has eigni ed he ju isdic ional
con lic , wi h p o essional associa ions on bo h sides ac i ely pa icipa ing. While
i emains o be seen whe he he cu en amewo k will be e ised by he nex
go e nmen , i appea s unlikely, om oday’s pe spec i e, ha he s eps aken o
libe alize legal ech ools will be olled back.
Fu he mo e, he pace o echnological de elopmen will also con inue o des -
abilize exis ing ju isdic ional bounda ies (Susskind & Susskind 2016: 195–228) and
is likely o p opel he a ious p o essions ope a ing in he legal se ices ma ke
owa ds an inc easingly specialized di ision o labou . This d i owa ds a di i-
sion o labou se lemen – which we ha e obse ed in he Ge man legal se ices
ma ke – is no an ab up ansi ion bu a g adual p ocess, “because he ask changes
ha gene a e such se lemen s a e g adual” (Abbo 1988: 73). Consequen ly, i is
plausible ha o he o eseeable u u e, bo h p o essions will inc easingly ocus on
hei specialized oles, while lawye s will likely con inue o adop some legal ech
ools o hei own p ac ice.
Howe e , as Abbo acknowledges, main aining a se lemen h ough a di ision o
labou se lemen inde ini ely is challenging (Abbo 1988: 74). Mo eo e , se lemen s
should be seen as empo a y s epping s ones a he han endpoin s when a p o ession
is eme gen (Baba e al.2021: 1927; Sako e al.2022: 145). Gi en he an icipa ed de elop-
men s ha he legal p o essions will con on due o he eme gence o a i icial in elli-
