Since 2001, we have worked at the intersection of law and technology, legally precise and with an eye for what else it takes. Law does not solve everything. But used correctly, it shifts the balance between individuals and corporations, between what is and what ought to be.
Most law firms advise as generalists. We do not. Since 2001, we have worked almost exclusively in information technology law and its overlaps with other fields of law, long before that counted as a strategy. Today, almost half of our lawyers hold the title Fachanwalt für IT-Recht (specialist lawyer for IT law). That is unusual in Germany and anchors our depth structurally. We know software, licensing constructs, platform architectures, and AI models from practice.
Specialization does not protect against error; it can even encourage it. We approach every engagement on the principle that cherished hypotheses must be re-examined. A firm that believes its reputation alone puts it ahead is, in reality, often already behind. In a field that changes monthly, routine is also a risk.
That sounds self-evident — in practice, it is not. It means not giving clients answers that are doctrinally correct but operationally useless. A solution that holds up in court but that no one in the company can implement is not a solution.
More and more engagements begin with an AI result. For us, that is a good starting point. We take over where automated output reaches its limits: legal judgment, strategy, responsibility, and the facts of the individual case.
To the AI second opinionLaw for a world that moves faster than its laws. That is where we see our task: to be useful in the gap between technological reality and the legal framework.
A portion of our working time is deliberately reserved for engagements that do not pay off financially but matter to society. With that, we decide what kind of firm we want to be.
Law is not magic. It is a craft, and practiced cleanly it can make a difference even where power is unevenly distributed. That shows in three ways: in client work, in sharing knowledge, and in proceedings whose effect reaches beyond the individual case.
We advise and represent companies as well as private individuals: software companies, automotive manufacturers, platform operators, startups, and medium-sized companies, along with individuals whose rights are violated online. The topics range from FOSS compliance, AI regulation, and data protection to cybersecurity, social media law, and contract drafting. The standard is always the same: create legal certainty, name risks honestly, deliver solutions that hold up in practice.
We publish and give talks: at professional conferences, in books, in webinar series and on social media. The Praxishandbuch zur generativen KI in der Rechtsberatung (practitioner's handbook on generative AI in legal advice) and the Praxishandbuch Open Source (practitioner's handbook on open source) grew out of the same conviction: professional knowledge is more useful when it circulates than when it is held back.
Some proceedings matter because they set precedent for everyone. The cases against Facebook and Twitter/X over hate and disinformation, the lawsuit against the German importer of MG vehicles over FOSS violations, the Trade Republic engagements: they show that law can be effective even against powerful actors. Not always. But more often than would be the case without trying.
From the beginning, we have not just written about legal tech — we have built it. Expert systems for the automated handling of legal tasks were developed in Würzburg long before the term “legal tech” became a buzzword. Today, projects such as JUNLOCK, CAILEE, and Juriskop run under this roof.
For us, that follows logically: anyone advising clients on the adoption of AI systems should understand how those systems work in practice, including the constraints that only become visible during development and testing. This connection between legal practice and technical understanding is what defines us.
And because we know how these models are built, we also know where they err — not randomly, but systematically where a case departs from the pattern. Which is exactly the kind of case that comes to us.
We could be in Frankfurt. We are in Würzburg. For us, that is a deliberate choice.
For us, Würzburg means: manageable structures, short lines of communication within the team, no anonymous big-firm atmosphere. Our clients reach the person handling their matter — not a mailroom. Those who work here know their colleagues in the other practice areas. Specialization demands depth, and depth grows more easily in an environment where you do not get lost in a hierarchy.
At the same time, we advise nationwide and appear before courts throughout Germany. Würzburg as a location does not limit our reach. It shapes how we work with one another internally.
Initial assessment: 15 minutes, free of charge, protected by lawyer-client confidentiality. No form, no ticket system — a conversation.
