How the German secrecy offence and attorney service-provider rules work together for AI tools

When a German law firm uses an AI tool, two sets of rules meet. The Criminal Code (StGB §203) makes the unauthorised disclosure of client secrets an offence. The Federal Lawyers' Act (BRAO §43e) sets the professional conditions for using external service providers. They are often read separately. In practice, they describe one set of steps.

Not legal advice. How either provision applies to a given tool is for counsel to decide. This piece is an operational reading, not a legal analysis. For the overall decision chain, start with How German attorney service-provider rules apply to AI tools in a law firm.

What each provision is about, in plain words

• The secrecy offence (StGB §203) protects client secrets under criminal law. It recognises that lawyers work with others who contribute to their work, and it allows secrets to be shared with them to the extent necessary. It also expects the lawyer to take care that those contributors are bound to secrecy, and it extends responsibility to the contributors themselves.
• The service-provider rules (BRAO §43e) describe, from the professional side, how a lawyer may use external services: careful selection, an agreement in text form that binds the provider to confidentiality, limits on what is shared, and additional points for services used abroad and for services that serve a single matter.

Where they meet

Read together, the two point to the same questions:

1. Is the provider someone who contributes to the firm's work? The secrecy offence allows sharing with contributors. The service-provider rules describe how to engage one.
2. Is only what is necessary shared? Both work with the idea of necessity. Less matter detail in the prompt means less is shared: How to remove client and matter details from AI prompts.
3. Is the provider bound to secrecy by an agreement in text form? This is where the professional agreement and the criminal-law expectation of care meet.
4. Who else is in the chain? Subcontractors and hosting providers are part of the picture: How to map where an AI tool's prompts and logs actually go.
5. Does the service serve a single matter? That changes what is required: Firm-wide AI or a service for one matter: how to document the classification.

What this means operationally

One file per tool use answers both sets of questions: the selection record, the agreement in text form, the map of the provider chain, the classification, the settings and the review date. A tool connected directly to firm software belongs in the same file, with its access scope: How to connect AI to your law firm software through an interface.

The firm prepares the file. Counsel reads it against both provisions.

FAQ

If the professional rules are followed, is the criminal side covered? The two are connected but not identical, and neither page of documentation settles the question by itself. Counsel decides. Not legal advice.

Does a data processing agreement cover both? A data protection agreement serves a different purpose. Whether it also covers the secrecy and professional points depends on its content, which counsel reviews.

Does this apply to free chat tools used by individual lawyers? Every use in which client information leaves the firm raises the same questions. Document it like any other use.

How we build this at AETOP

We build agents on Spectacle on the same principle: a model gets only the objects a task needs, numbers are calculated in code, the model handles language, every request is logged, and a human releases before anything changes. The aim is time back for the people who still do this coordination by hand, without taking the decision away from them. Approval-gated actions are on our roadmap and not yet bookable; we do not describe them as live before they are. If you want to talk through your own setup: see Spectacle.

Not legal advice. This piece describes operational practice and does not replace a legal review.