By Arno Lampmann · Published
MagazinaltAs of: 20.05.2015. The legal situation may have changed since.
Already in 2014 we reported on several cases in which “investor protection associations” had used dubious methods to advertise towards potential clients.
Numerous nearly identical cases – the legal expenses insurance pays – regardless of success
Investment law is a lucrative field for business-minded lawyers. Due to usually high investment sums an accordingly high number of potential clients exists whose „service“, because of the comparability of the cases, does not require individually co-ordinated work of lawyers but is instead often “accomplished” by using prefabricated letter and statements of claim.
Adding to this, many investors have a legal expenses insurance which covers the attorney’s fees – regardless of their success. We already reported a stark case here: “Anlegerschutzkanzlei” macht mit 3.500 nahezu identischen und erfolglosen Klagen 6,6 Millionen Euro Umsatz.
The worried “consumer protection association”: In fact, a vehicle for attorney advertising
As the professional law of Attorney Advertising sets certain limits, most doubting investors are not fooled easily, quickly recognize confidence tricks and wont “take the bait”, some colleagues try to give their advertising the guise of a “protective association”, which in reality is not one, to gain credibility. This approach has already been banned in the past by the district court Hamburg: LHR erwirkt Werbeverbot gegen “Anlegerschutzanwälte” wegen nicht existenter “Schutzgemeinschaft”
But there are actually existing associations that have consumer protection written on their flag but in reality also only serve as a platform for lawyers’ mandate advertising.
The district court of Hamburg (LG Hamburg, decision v. 21.04.2015, Az. 312 O 134/15) has now, in a case represented by LHR, banned a report by a associations about a complaint by an investor protection lawyer which included false and misleading claims, such as the offer containing hidden costs.
In case of violation the associations or its board of directors risks a fine of up to 250,000 EUR. The decision has been made by way of a preliminary injunction and therefore has no written explanation and is not legally binding.
Lawyer Arno Lampmann of LHR:
“Sometimes there are good reasons to doubt the success of an investment. This does not even have to be due to the ill will of the provider. A wise move could then be to involve a known protective association, such as the Schutzgemeinschaft der Kapitalanleger (SdK) or an attorney. However, caution is necessary when it comes to too blatant advertising, especially when it emanates from lawyers or lesser-known communities or associations.”
(la)