Anyone signing a written submission as a Rechtsanwalt must have reviewed it themselves. An appeal against a refusal to grant leave to appeal, the grounds for which, judging by the external circumstances, have been adopted without review and which refers to non-existent decisions, is inadmissible. This was decided by the Federal Labour Court (BAG) in a recent ruling (Ref.: 2 AZN 339/26 of 30 September 2026). The proceedings were based on a labour law dispute concerning, amongst other things, a dismissal. The Baden-Württemberg Regional Labour Court had refused leave to appeal (judgement of 15 May 2026 – 7 Sa 17/26). The claimant lodged an appeal against this decision, which her legal representative submitted via the special electronic solicitors’ mailbox (beA).

Despite the submission of the written pleadings via the beA system, the Federal Labour Court (BAG) ruled that this did not constitute valid representation within the meaning of Section 11(4), first sentence, of the Labour Court Act (ArbGG). Whilst a third party may draft a written submission, the signing lawyer must review it independently and assume full responsibility. In principle, the signature alone is sufficient for this. The situation is different, however, if – as in this case – everything indicates that the document was signed without the lawyer having reviewed it themselves. Unlike the lawyer’s other pleadings, this pleading does not bear the law firm’s letterhead and is formatted in bold and underlined almost throughout. It begins with the heading „I. Statement of Appeal“, which has no legal basis, and refers extensively to decisions that either do not exist or to which inaccurate content is attributed. This should have been noticed during a conscientious review. In this regard, the Senate referred to the guidance from the German Federal Bar Association (BRAK) on the use of artificial intelligence, according to which AI-generated results must be independently verified. The authorised representative’s attempts at explanation failed to convince the court. Nor was it any longer possible to adopt the grounds for the decision after the expiry of the time limit set out in section 72a(3), first sentence, of the Labour Court Act (ArbGG).

The Administrative Court of Baden-Württemberg (VGH) had already ruled in a decision (Ref.: 10 S 581/26 dated 27 August 2026) Doubts were raised as to whether a written submission that had clearly been adopted without being checked could be taken into account where there is a requirement for legal representation in administrative proceedings; however, the question was ultimately left open. The Federal Labour Court (BAG) has now had to rule on it. The ruling clarifies what should be self-evident but is repeatedly disregarded in practice. Every written submission and every individual reference must always be verified, regardless of who drafted it. Following these rulings, courts are likely to scrutinise suspicious written submissions more closely and take a more decisive approach in future.