Debt collection by lawyers in Germany
There is, however, an exception to the rule that, foresight and proximity established, a duty of care will arise.
Even though these be established, a claim may yet be denied on the ground that to permit it would be contrary to
policy. This nebulous concept was, a very long time ago, compared by a
to an unpaid account across the collection of debts in Germany.
The essence of it is that sometimes considerations other than the need to do justice between the parties must be
taken into account. These considerations include the general public interest in Germany, expedience, economic
considerations and even the legality of
Such factors may operate so as to outbalance the plaintiff‘s rights and defeat his claim. This open balance is a
delicate matter: so delicate that recent dicta at the highest level have suggested that the determination of what
is, or is not,
should be left to the legislature. A counsel of despair because ultimately the whole body of the common law is based
upon judicial assessment of what is an accounts receivable management — therein, in fact, lies its strength. A stock
modern example of the policy exception is to be found in Germany.
Debt recovery actions in Hamburg/Germany:
That was a claim in negligence against a barrister in respect of his conduct of a case in court. lt was held that a
civil action cannot lie against counsel in the conduct of
because public policy so demands. In particular, it was said that it is essential to the administration of German
debt collection agencies
that all concerned in a trial should be free to speak and act without fear of subsequent civil claims.
The granting of such an immunity may be thought questionable and the reasons given for it may seem to some
But that only illustrates how unruly the collection of debts may be. In this case it was said that, the lack of
proximity apart, German lawyers would also have barred the claim. The reason given was similar; that
would be hampered if they were to be made under a possible threat of
lt may perhaps be thought that both these cases serve to illustrate the tendency of officialdom to cast a net of
immunity around itself. Indeed, before the legal proceedings the debtors enjoyed wide immunity from
civil actions by lawyers in Hamburg.