Advertising for lawyers in Germany: what BRAO, BORA and UWG allow

What changed on 01.12.2025

On 26.05.2025, the Satzungsversammlung (rule-making assembly) at the BRAK (Federal Bar) adopted new versions of §§ 6, 8 and 10 BORA. The changes have been in force since 01.12.2025 and directly affect what appears on law firm websites:

§ 43b BRAO (Bundesrechtsanwaltsordnung, the Federal Lawyers' Act) itself is unchanged. It permits advertising insofar as it informs factually and is not aimed at obtaining an instruction in an individual case. The Bundesgerichtshof (BGH, Federal Court of Justice) had already interpreted the individual-case criterion narrowly in 2013 (BGH, judgment of 13.11.2013, I ZR 15/12): writing to potential clients while knowing of a specific need for advice is not impermissible for that reason alone. The BORA has now expressly adopted this line.

Factual, not boring: the principle

Factual does not mean dry to the point of being unreadable. Information about activity, qualifications, team, way of working and prices is permitted, even when attractively designed. Advertising becomes unprofessional when it exaggerates like a commercial, creates fear or promises results nobody can guarantee. On top of that comes the ban on misleading statements in § 5 UWG (unfair competition law), which competitors and associations can enforce.

Advertising for an individual mandate

The fact that individual-case advertising is now expressly permitted opens up routes that used to be disputed: a letter to investors in a fund that has run into trouble, an offer to people affected by a publicised data breach, or an ad aimed at recipients of a particular fine notice. The limits remain, however:

• No harassment: telephone marketing to consumers without prior express consent is not permitted, and neither is email marketing without express consent (§ 7 Abs. 2 UWG).
• No ambushing: approaching people in an acute emergency, for example at the scene of an accident or shortly after an arrest, crosses the line into unprofessional conduct.
• No misleading: the letter must neither exaggerate the prospects of success nor give the impression of an official notice.
• Confidentiality: knowledge from other mandates must not be used for client acquisition (§ 43a Abs. 2 BRAO).

Fachanwalt, focus area, specialist

On hardly any other topic does each individual word matter so much. The Fachanwalt title is awarded by the chamber's board under the FAO (Fachanwaltsordnung, the specialist lawyer regulations) (§ 43c BRAO), for a maximum of three fields. All other claims about sub-fields are governed by § 7 BORA, and the BGH has set clear standards for “Spezialist” (judgment of 24.07.2014, I ZR 53/13): anyone who uses this label must set out and prove that their self-assessment is correct. In a field for which a Fachanwalt title exists, “Spezialist” is permitted under this ruling if the lawyer's skills meet the requirements for a Fachanwalt, even if there is a risk of confusion with the title.

References and case reports

Advertising with mandates or clients is only permitted with express consent, even if the client relationship is no longer subject to confidentiality, for example because it is publicly known (§ 6 Abs. 2 BORA). This covers logo strips of corporate clients, named quotes, case studies and press releases about cases won. Obtain consent in writing or in text form, state the specific purpose of use in it and keep it on file. Anonymised case examples from which nobody can identify the people involved are not advertising with clients, but they must remain true.

Reviews on your website and on portals

Displaying reviews is allowed. Anyone who makes consumer reviews available must, however, state whether and how it is ensured that they come from people who actually used the service (§ 5b Abs. 3 UWG). Claiming that reviews are genuine without an appropriate check, and commissioning fake reviews, is always prohibited under Nos. 23b and 23c of the annex to § 3 Abs. 3 UWG.

For the QR code on business cards or closing letters, there is the free review QR code generator.

Advertising with prices and initial consultations

Price information is permitted and helps people seeking legal advice make a decision. The RVG (Rechtsanwaltsvergütungsgesetz, the Lawyers' Remuneration Act) sets the framework. For advising consumers without a fee agreement, there are caps: a maximum of 250 euros, and for an initial consultation a maximum of 190 euros, plus VAT in each case (§ 34 Abs. 1 RVG). There is no minimum fee for advice, so a free initial consultation is not ruled out from the outset. In court proceedings, by contrast, the statutory fees must not be undercut (§ 49b Abs. 1 BRAO).

• Describe clearly: “Initial consultation up to 45 minutes: 120 euros plus VAT (142.80 euros gross)” is better than “Initial consultation from 99 euros*” with small print.
• Success fees only within narrow limits: “No win, no fee” is only permitted in the cases covered by § 4a RVG, for example for monetary claims of up to 2,000 euros or in debt collection (§ 49b Abs. 2 BRAO). As a general advertising slogan, it is misleading.
• Mention legal expenses insurance: a factual note that you handle the coverage request with the client's legal expenses insurer is permitted and decisive for many people searching.

Google Ads, social media, newsletters and portals

• Google Ads: ads on area of law and place are permitted. The ad copy follows the same rules as the website: no guarantees, no unprovable claims to top position, “Fachanwalt” only with the title.
• Social media: expert posts and insights into everyday firm life are factual information. Cases only in anonymised form or with express consent, and link to the imprint from your profile too.
• Newsletters: email marketing requires express consent (§ 7 Abs. 2 UWG). The existing-client exception only applies if you obtained the address in connection with a service of your own, are advertising similar services of your own, there has been no objection and you point out the right to object when collecting the address and in every email (§ 7 Abs. 3 UWG). For editorial content, name a person responsible (§ 18 Abs. 2 MStV).
• Portals and intermediaries: shares of fees or other benefits for referring instructions are prohibited (§ 49b Abs. 3 BRAO). With platforms, check whether they charge per referred mandate; fixed fees for a profile listing are easier to assess.

Rankings, awards and success figures

You may mention placings in magazine rankings or seals from review portals if they are accurate and the source and year are recognisable, for example “Recommended in Ranking X 2026, employment law”. It becomes misleading if an old seal looks current or a paid quality seal comes across as an independent award. The BORA today contains no specific rule on success or case figures. The benchmark is the ban on misleading statements: “More than 400 unfair dismissal cases since 2018” is a verifiable fact, a “95 % success rate” without explaining what counts as a success is not.

If you are just setting up, you will find the full path in the article Setting up a law firm in Germany. How firms become visible locally with factual content is explained in Local SEO.