We had a consultation regarding an inheritance law matter with international implications. After the meeting, several issues remained unresolved, so I subsequently sent a specific follow-up inquiry via email. However, I did not receive a substantive response to this inquiry. Instead, another appointment was initially suggested. The agreed-upon appointment was later canceled by the firm because another client took priority.
We were unable to attend the alternative appointments suggested thereafter due to work commitments. Since my original question remained unanswered, I asked whether a brief written assessment would be possible. Unfortunately, we received no substantive response to this either. Instead, shortly thereafter, we received an invoice for a consultation under § 34 RVG at the maximum rate.
Since our central question ultimately remained unanswered and no further substantive discussion took place, we unfortunately had the overall impression that there was little interest in further processing our matter. It’s a shame—we would have liked to see a more engaged consultation and at least a brief response to our specific inquiry.
Show original
Translation
The fees for the initial consultation are not maximum rates in the traditional sense. They are a cost cap to protect consumers. However, this value has remained unchanged for a good 20 years. Particularly in inheritance law, for a one-hour consultation and complex issues, a higher amount would therefore have to be set without the cap. Many law firms also generally charge for inheritance law advice on the basis of a fee agreement. We are very cautious here during an initial consultation.
We were able to clarify all the issues from your appointment at the time. On the contrary, you then proceeded with the implementation on the basis of our advice and had further questions. You expressly requested an appointment for this, which we agreed with you.
It was only against this background that no further feedback was received. We wanted to clarify your extensive questions at this meeting. A reply by e-mail would probably not have helped you.
As you know, we then had to cancel the agreed appointment. This was in no way a judgment on you or your request, but was due to an error on our part when making the appointment. We made this very clear to you. You had no understanding for this and did not want any of the new appointments offered.