Single judge Stefan Romstorfer classified the assessment as “borderline” but “still permissible”. The judge found that there was a “sufficient factual basis” on the basis of which the incriminated designation “must be permitted”.
Invoice instead of explanation
The defendant – a businessman – wanted to use the law firm’s services to handle a real estate transaction on trust. He was charged 1,858 euros for an initial consultation, which seemed quite expensive to the man. “He would have expected an explanation as to why it was so expensive,” said the man’s legal representative in the Gray House on Wednesday afternoon. Instead, he received a bill for almost 2,000 euros, which he fought under civil law and lost the legal dispute. “He wrote the post in question in response to this,” admitted the man’s defense attorney, emphasizing that the word “greedy” in this context was covered by freedom of expression and the “public’s need for information.”
Lawyer announced legal action
A lawyer from the law firm concerned strongly contradicted this view. Rather, the Google review represents a “concrete threat”; a potential customer has already dropped out due to the negative review. More could follow. The law firm therefore does not want to accept the criminal defeat in the first instance. Their representative announced legal remedies against the rejection of the lawsuit, which – should the complaint be carried out – would have to be dealt with by the Vienna Higher Regional Court (OLG).
ePaper
**Interview with Legal Expert Dr. Clara Jensen on the Impact of Google Reviews for Law Firms**
**Editor:** Good afternoon, Dr. Jensen, and thank you for joining us today. Recently, there has been quite a stir regarding online reviews and their implications for legal professionals. Could you first provide us with some context on the recent court case involving the businessman and his negative review of a law firm?
**Dr. Jensen:** Good afternoon! Yes, the case highlights the delicate balance between freedom of expression and the potential reputational harm that a negative review can cause a law firm. The businessman felt overcharged for legal services and expressed his dissatisfaction through a Google review, describing the law firm as “greedy.” The court ruled that while the term was borderline, it was still permissible under the freedom of expression.
**Editor:** This raises significant questions about the responsibility of clients when posting reviews. What is your take on a client’s obligation to provide constructive feedback versus the potential harm their words can cause to legal businesses?
**Dr. Jensen:** It’s a nuanced issue. While clients absolutely have the right to express their experiences, they should consider the impact their words may have, especially in a professional context. Constructive feedback is beneficial, but disparaging comments like “greedy” without context can mislead potential clients and unjustly harm a firm’s reputation.
**Editor:** The law firm, as you mentioned, plans to take legal action in response to the review. Do you think this could set a precedent for how negative online feedback is handled in the legal industry?
**Dr. Jensen:** Absolutely. If they succeed, it could embolden more law firms to pursue legal action against reviews they deem harmful. However, this could also spark a broader conversation about the limits of free speech in the digital age, and whether platforms like Google should do more to mediate dispute resolutions between clients and professionals.
**Editor:** It’s interesting to note that obtaining positive reviews can significantly enhance a law firm’s credibility and visibility online. How can legal practitioners encourage more satisfied clients to leave favorable reviews?
**Dr. Jensen:** Law firms should actively encourage satisfied clients to share their experiences on platforms like Google. This can be done through follow-up communications post-services, offering simple ways to leave reviews, and even providing incentives for feedback. However, they must ensure these practices adhere to ethical standards set by legal boards.
**Editor:** Lastly, for clients considering leaving a review, what advice would you give them to ensure their feedback is constructive and fair?
**Dr. Jensen:** Clients should aim for clarity and specificity in their reviews. Instead of using charged terms like “greedy,” they could provide detailed accounts of their experience, mentioning both what they appreciated and what could have improved. This not only helps the firm learn and grow, but also aids future clients in making informed decisions.
**Editor:** Thank you so much for your insights today, Dr. Jensen! Clearly, Google reviews play a significant role in shaping a law firm’s image, and navigating this landscape is increasingly complex.
**Dr. Jensen:** Thank you for having me. It’s a crucial topic, and I’m glad to see it being discussed.
