Rechtsanwaltskanzlei Couck

Thank you very much for your excellent review. We are very pleased that you are satisfied with our services.

Dear Mr. Waßmuth,

I have taken note of your evaluation. Unfortunately, this has as little to do with your case, especially in the actual course of the legal action, as with the quality of my services. I would like to make the following comments:

First of all, I did not present myself as a specialist attorney for construction law, since I do not bear the title of specialist attorney according to the FAO, which is also known to you. The fact that building law is my main area of practice is indeed correct.
The topic of the minimum distance between two buildings was very well explored with you, although this was not relevant to the decision in your matter.

Your description of the course of the oral proceedings has nothing in common with reality:
In the present case, the judge did not ask about the filing of the application, but which legal protection objective was sought with the action, since not only a civil-law action, but also an administrative-law action would have been possible in principle, which was also correct.

Since the responsible building supervisory authority could not be persuaded to take any action despite countless efforts on my part, which I incidentally undertook for you free of charge, all that remained was legal action before a civil court to enforce your claims. In the context of this, you also left no doubt that you were completely indifferent to the neighborly relationship in view of the approach of the other side, which was contrary to building law.

A good neighborly relationship can hardly have been important to you in the present case for the reason that the building owners had just moved in. An existing neighborly relationship could hardly be destroyed against this background, since none existed.

In all other respects your remarks are perplexing to the far judicial asserting of my costs:
You are apparently also of the opinion that you can make use of services without paying for them. If there should be colleagues who work free of charge, you would like to turn to them. In any case, you were well aware of my costs from the outset, as I attach great importance to cost transparency at every stage of the mandate. In any case, I assume that any lawyer whom you do not pay will also enforce his costs in court if necessary.

The fact that the court proceedings, as in the present case, unfortunately did not end to your satisfaction is, however, standard legal practice. This is regrettable, but not due to any professional error on my part, but rather to the legal opinion of the court, according to which your temporary injunction proceedings were rejected for lack of urgency. In terms of substantive law, the merits of your claims were therefore no longer an issue. In this respect, the court made the situation simple for itself and dismissed the application, thus referring you to the main proceedings.

You then refused to take further legal action in the main proceedings, despite my advice to do so, despite the fact that there were prospects of success, not least because of the legal situation, which in my opinion was clear, regarding the undercutting of the minimum distance areas, and resigned from the mandate. The resignation did not take place on my part, but I merely confirmed this and issued you with a final account.

Incidentally, I reject the discrediting representation that I work exclusively profit-oriented. My main interest is always the best possible enforcement of my clients' interests and their satisfaction.

I regret that I was not able to do this in your case due to the lack of further possibilities for legal action, but I wish you every success in your future endeavors.

Yours sincerely

Michael Couck
(Attorney at Law)