A glance at any search engine for lawyer rankings and quality seals shows an impressive array of supposedly objective distinctions. "Germany's best lawyers", "Top law firm 2024", "Focus recommendation" — there is plenty to marvel at. One might conclude that our profession is so densely populated with geniuses that every second office is apparently world-class.
Anyone who looks behind the scenes quickly realises that many of these awards follow a well-rehearsed commercial logic. Publishers and service providers send out "nominations", and the nominated lawyer is then invited to book the corresponding brass plate, the commemorative certificate or the advertising licence — not infrequently for four-figure sums. The methodology behind the "award" is often little more than: whoever pays, appears.
Of course there are also serious rankings, based on peer votes, published decisions or client surveys. The trouble is that for the ordinary client they are virtually indistinguishable from the paid variety. Both sides use the same vocabulary: top, elite, outstanding, recommended. Both sides place the little golden seal in the corner of the website.
For those seeking legal help, this has two consequences. First, the seal is not a selection criterion. A lawyer without any quality label may be excellent, a lawyer with six labels may be no better than average. Secondly, word of mouth, a personal meeting and the question of whether the lawyer speaks in a way that actually helps you are worth more than any ranking.
At our firm we have deliberately declined to pay for such awards. Not because we think it is forbidden or indecent, but because we think it is pointless. The quality of our work is what it is; a seal does not change it — neither by one comma for the better nor for the worse. If we are to be judged at all, it should be on the basis of the cases we handle, not on the basis of the invoices we paid a publisher.
Those who truly need a lawyer should therefore give themselves the time of an initial meeting. There are honest questions that get honest answers: what will it probably cost, what are the realistic chances, what is the plan. Anyone who listens for the substance of those answers, rather than the number of medals in the waiting room, is already making a better selection than any ranking list could make for them.