VG Munich: No information about defense lawyers - freedom of the press vs. client confidentiality

A surprising verdict for journalists

The Administrative Court (VG) of Munich has ruled that journalists have no right to know the names of defense lawyers in an ongoing investigation (decision of 18.06.2025, ref. M 10 E 25.3465). This decision is in stark contrast to a recent ruling by the Hamburg Higher Administrative Court (OVG), which ruled the exact opposite.

What had happened?

In May 2025, a suspect was arrested in Munich on suspicion of murder. The police informed the public in a press release and at a press conference. A journalist who had not attended the press conference then wanted to know the name of the suspect's defense lawyer from the public prosecutor's office. However, the public prosecutor's office refused to provide the information on the grounds that the choice of defense counsel was part of client confidentiality and could not be disclosed by judicial press spokespersons.

Despite a further request, this time from the newspaper's legal advisor, there was no response. The journalist then went to court and applied for a temporary injunction to obtain the information.

Munich Administrative Court: Protection of client confidentiality

In contrast to the Hamburg courts, which granted the press a right to information, the VG Munich ruled in favor of client confidentiality. The court argued that a lawyer's duty of confidentiality pursuant to Section 43a (2) sentence 1 of the Federal Lawyers' Act (BRAO) was also in the public interest in the administration of justice under the rule of law. This duty was indispensable and outweighed the press's interest in information.

The Munich Administrative Court stated that the journalist could not base his claim on Art. 4 para. 1 sentence 1 of the Bavarian Press Act (BayPrG). Although the press has a fundamental right to information from the authorities, this information may be refused if there is a duty of confidentiality. Client confidentiality is such an obligation and protects the anonymity of the defense lawyer.

Freedom of the press vs. client confidentiality

The Munich Administrative Court Chamber conceded that freedom of the press carries particular weight in the context of reporting on a preliminary investigation. Nevertheless, client confidentiality prevailed in this case. As long as the accused does not wish to disclose himself to the press, the defense lawyer's anonymity is constitutionally protected. Circumventing this lawyer's duty of confidentiality by providing information to the public prosecutor's office is not permissible.

No claim under the Basic Law and ECHR

The Munich Administrative Court also saw no corresponding right to information pursuant to Article 5 (1) of the German Basic Law (GG) or Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The press would have to be patient until any first main hearing date, as this is generally public in accordance with Section 169 of the German Court Constitution Act (GVG). Until then, it would have to make do with the information published by the police and the public prosecutor's office.

A critical look at the decision

The Munich Administrative Court's decision shows how complex the tension between freedom of the press and the protection of client confidentiality is. While the press has a legitimate interest in reporting extensively on investigative proceedings, the rights of the accused and their defense lawyers must be safeguarded. It remains to be seen whether this decision will stand or whether higher courts will come to a different conclusion.