Managing liability risks in German law firms in times of doomsday claims

Legal Ethics ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 87-92
Author(s):  
Matthias Kilian
Keyword(s):  
2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hagen Habicht ◽  
Friedrich Wilhelm Werner Heidemann ◽  
Alastair Ross
Keyword(s):  

2005 ◽  
Vol 26 (12) ◽  
pp. 1765-1785 ◽  
Author(s):  
Glenn Morgan ◽  
Sigrid Quack

This article addresses the question of how economic actors (re)shape their organizational and institutional contexts as their activities internationalize. By focusing on law firms, we choose a professional activity that has been regarded as highly determined by the national distinctiveness of professional and legal systems and would lead us to expect strong institutional legacies on firm dynamics. The comparative study of the growth and internationalization of corporate law firms in the UK and Germany presented in this article, however, refutes this view. The results reveal that in both settings ‘institutional pockets’ of corporate lawyers existed whose entrepreneurial orientations and international reach were much stronger than among other subgroups of the profession. From the 1970s onwards, these lawyers and law firms engaged in redefining their organizational and institutional contexts with the aim of positioning themselves in ways that would allow them to seize upon the emerging international markets for legal services. They did so in different ways and at different times in each country. We conclude that internationalization of UK and German law firms bears traces of institutional legacies as well as signs of path-modification, and that international markets for legal services may be more differentiated and less dominated by Anglo-Saxon law firms and conceptions of law than has been so far recognized.


2020 ◽  
Vol 69 (3) ◽  
pp. 225-232
Author(s):  
Stefan Marschall

Abstract Blockchain Elements Integrated Multinational Search (BEIMS) is a response to an ongoing discussion about the search and examination procedures employed in patent offices, relaunched in 2018 when German law firms sent an open letter to the President of the European Patent Office. The BEIMS concept turns away from patent examiners working by themselves in isolation, and instead involves experts from different offices working in close co-operation. BEIMS integrates elements of Blockchain Technology – such as decentralized network, competition and consensus building – with the participation of several national and/or regional patent offices, and involves financial incentives. The co-operating patent offices are coequal and, as a consequence, a multinational search report is generated with cited prior art determined and evaluated by patent examiners of different patent offices in due time.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lukas Beck

Groups of companies are used to avoid liability risks and, as a rule, one company is not made liable for another company’s debts. However, sustaining this separated liability is not always successful and, in exceptional cases, a parent company is made liable. This fact is well known in German law, although some issues still remain unexplained today. Recently, this liability has increasingly occurred in European antitrust law, and it appears as if such cases are no longer isolated incidents but have become standard. Such liability threatens the organisation of groups of companies without the liability of the parent company. However, this matter is protected by both the German and European legal systems, which therefore have to answer the question of how such liability can be justified. This work examines this question.


2002 ◽  
Vol 61 (2) ◽  
pp. 463-492
Author(s):  
Nicholas Sinclair-Brown

This book comprises papers presented at the first Anglo-German Law Conference organised by the Oxford Law Faculty in autumn 1999. Written by specialists, including members of leading English and German Law firms, the text provides a richly textured insight into the nature and operation of joint ventures underpinned by an informed commentary as to the distinctive considerations brought to bear under two highly developed systems of law.


2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 326-337
Author(s):  
Steve Hedley

In this article, Professor Steve Hedley offers a Common Law response to he recently published arguments of Professor Nils Jansen on the German law of unjustified enrichment (as to which, see Jansen, “Farewell to Unjustified Enrichment” (2016) 20 EdinLR 123). The author takes the view that Jansen's paper provided a welcome opportunity to reconsider not merely what unjust enrichment can logically be, but what it is for. He argues that unjust enrichment talk contributes little of value, and that the supposedly logical process of stating it at a high level of abstraction, and then seeking to deduce the law from that abstraction, merely distracts lawyers from the equities of the cases they consider.


2016 ◽  
Vol 167 (2) ◽  
pp. 82-89
Author(s):  
Michael Bütler

Responsibility for forest-linked dangers: examples from legal practice According to the Forest Policy 2020 of the Federal Council the share of old and dead wood should increase in Swiss forests. On the one hand, this is connected to positive ecological effects but on the other, to dangers, responsibilities and liability risks. Recent court and administrative decisions relating to accidents due to typical forest hazards such as falling trees and branches illustrate the legal situation for forest owners and enterprises as well as for forestry professionals. In the wooded environment near buildings and equipment there are obligations for the safety of traffic and passers-by. However, these obligations are limited by the reasonableness of protective measures and the personal responsibility of forest users. In this paper, the liability issue is illustrated by three legal case studies. The cases are assessed by the author, and the essential legal basis for liability is briefly summarized.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document