Chamber Complaint, Criminal Report, Threat: What Professionals Should Do Now (10 Steps)

Published on 07.11.2026

Chamber Complaint: What to Do Now

What do I do if a complaint or criminal report is threatened? Ten steps

The steps are to be worked through in this order; the decision points say which route to take when.

Step 1: Secure and keep silent immediately

Arrange everything in writing (mandate, instructions, threat, complaint, deadlines) chronologically with date and source, keep the originals unchanged, and store protected documents only where unauthorised persons have no access. As to substance, you do not comment to colleagues or your association; one neutral sentence is enough: “I will comment in the competent proceedings.” No unilateral statements to the press and public – public relations only in coordination with your lawyer (litigation PR).

Step 2: Obtain legal advice

The advising lawyer is himself bound to confidentiality;[1] the advice serves to protect your own rights and, on the view taken here, falls within the scope of the authorities set out in the article “Confidentiality in Your Own Case”. Legal advice comes before any statement on the substance to any body. At the same time, report a threatened liability claim to your professional liability insurer: the notification is due within one week (Section 104(1) VVG);[2] limit it to what is necessary and observe the insurer’s information obligations in doing so (details in the first article).

Step 3: Classify the situation (decision point)

Chamber or appointing body with a request for information: continue with step 5. Private association: step 5 and, there, the section on the private professional association. Threat or pressure by the client (for example a complaint as a means of enforcing a claim): step 6. Civil-law claim (fee, injunction): step 7. Several situations at once: all steps, step 8 for coordination. If the tax office is in the picture (logbook, tax audit, entertainment receipts): step 4 and the section “Tax office” in the first article. If you are summoned as a witness: step 8.

Step 4: Clarify the basis for disclosure (decision point)

If a release exists or can be obtained, in writing as to scope, addressee and proceedings, you disclose only within that framework. If it is missing or unclear, check according to the order of assessment in the article “Confidentiality in Your Own Case” (clause as an indicator, then justification; Section 34 StGB only as a subordinate point). Doctors: the medical professional code has no clause for own interests. The professional code is statutory-instrument law and creates no criminal-law authority. The Federal Medical Association and KBV expressly recognise the protection of legitimate interests for doctors, for instance for fee claims, defence against prosecution and a criminal report after violence by patients, but name no legal basis; the release therefore remains particularly important here.[3] The result is a written disclosure plan: addressee, purpose, legal basis, necessary and unnecessary details. It remains the limit for all further steps; if the legal basis is doubtful after examination, there is no disclosure. Lawyers may in addition rely on Section 56(1) BRAO.[4] Vis-à-vis the tax office, the right to refuse information under Section 102 AO protects what was entrusted,[5] but does not replace proof of your own deductions. The GDPR and the Trade Secrets Act apply alongside; details in the first article. In a fee lawsuit against the client the following applies: if the patient or client refuses the release or revokes it, this is not automatically an evidentiary presumption in your favour; the refusal can, however, be taken into account under Section 286 ZPO (BAG, 08.05.2014 – 2 AZR 75/13, para. 31).[6]

Step 5: Respond to supervisory or association proceedings

Note the deadline and apply for an extension if needed. If the basis for disclosure from step 4 supports the information requested, answer limited to what is necessary. If it does not, expressly invoke, with reasons, the right to refuse information (lawyers: Section 56(1) sentence 2 BRAO;[4] experts: expert regulations[7]). With a private association, which creates no sovereign duty to provide information, request the release in writing and object to ambiguities in writing.

Step 6: Respond to pressure and decide on a criminal report (decision point)

Announcing a complaint is not coercion as such; a threat of an appreciable harm is punishable only if it is to be regarded as reprehensible in relation to the purpose pursued (Section 240(1), (2) StGB).[8] A report comes into consideration if concrete, provable facts support a suspicion of an offence (for example coercion or fraud). If there is only a supposition, stay with steps 5 and 7. If you decide on a report, it is addressed to the public prosecutor’s office or the police; on request you receive an acknowledgement of receipt.[9] It initially contains only what is necessary (step 4). Two risks are to be considered. A false accusation presupposes an accusation “against better knowledge”, so mistaken reports do not meet Section 164 StGB;[10] nevertheless assert only proven facts. And you lose control: the public prosecutor’s office conducts the proceedings, may discontinue them, you become a witness, and your disclosure may go further than planned. Against a discontinuance, a complaint and, to a limited extent, the procedure to compel prosecution are available.[9]

Step 7: Consider civil-law routes

Consider a fee lawsuit, an action for a negative declaration, claims for injunctive relief against defamatory assertions, and claims for surrender. Your own lawsuit is permitted and requires no release; only what is necessary to substantiate the claim is presented (BGH, 23.06.1993 – VIII ZR 226/92; OLG Brandenburg, 21.11.2001 – 7 U 216/00).[11][12] Against an unlawful association measure the ordinary legal route is open.[13] That also applies to a mere “association court”; only a genuine arbitral tribunal (Sections 1029 et seq. ZPO) excludes the legal route – check the statutes.[14]

Fee claim – procedure according to case law and chamber guidance. Disclosure goes only as far as the respective stage requires:

• Stage 1 – Reminder. At first remind only as to the amount. Obtain the release for reminder and lawsuit already on intake; it must make the occasion and purpose recognisable (BGH, 10.10.2013 – III ZR 325/12, paras. 11–13).[15] The Hamburg Chamber of Psychotherapists considers it permissible to point out already in the reminder that the necessary information will be passed to a debt-collection company in case of non-payment (chamber view).[16]
• Stage 2 – Court order for payment. The application names the holder of the claim and the amount. Question: Does the same permission apply as for the lawsuit? What is established: the BGH described court enforcement of the fee claim as “undoubtedly permitted” (BGH, 23.06.1993 – VIII ZR 226/92).[11]
• Stage 3 – Objection and lawsuit. Only what is necessary to substantiate the claim is presented; the OLG Brandenburg permitted the tax adviser to present circumstances from the mandate to that extent (OLG Brandenburg, 21.11.2001 – 7 U 216/00).[12] Lawyers can in addition use cost assessment (Section 11 RVG), a fee opinion of the chamber board (Section 14(3) RVG, Section 73(2) no. 8 BRAO) and conciliation (Section 73(2) no. 3 BRAO).[17][18] Document the weighing (step 4). If the patient refuses the release or revokes it, the claim is not thereby deemed proven without more; the refusal can be taken into account in the assessment of evidence (BAG, 08.05.2014 – 2 AZR 75/13, para. 31).[6]
• Assignment, debt collection, factoring. Without specific consent, assignment to a commercial billing agency is void (BGH, 10.07.1991 – VIII ZR 296/90).[19] Exception among members of the professions: Section 49b(4) BRAO, Section 64(2) StBerG.[20][21] The release can be revoked at any time; the right to refuse to testify in criminal proceedings (Section 53 StPO) then revives (BGHSt 42, 73).[22][23] In civil proceedings it lapses only with a release (Section 385(2) ZPO).[24] For health professions, Section 402 BGB requires information and handover of documents, so assignment without consent is void unless Section 402 BGB has been waived (BGH, 06.06.2019 – IX ZR 272/17).[25] Question: Is the professional available as a witness in a debt-collection company’s lawsuit after revocation? What is established is the right to refuse to testify under Section 383 ZPO; the documented route is one’s own lawsuit (BGH, VIII ZR 226/92),[11] beforehand re-assignment (litigation representation only with one’s own interest worthy of protection: BGH, 24.08.2016 – VIII ZR 182/15).[26]
• Parents and spouse. Clarify who concluded the contract: for minors, both parents are regularly bound (BGH, 28.04.2005 – III ZR 351/04, para. 12);[27] a spouse is in principle co-bound under Section 1357 BGB for medically necessary, urgent treatment, but not where the spouses live apart (Section 1357(3) BGB; BVerfG, 08.10.2015 – 1 BvR 455/14, para. 12).[28][29] Tell the person liable to pay the amount; treatment details only with the patient’s release.
• Heirs. Confidentiality continues beyond death, and relatives have no right of release (BGH, 31.05.1983 – VI ZR 259/81);[30] the declared or presumed will of the deceased is decisive (BGH, 26.02.2013 – VI ZR 359/11, paras. 11 et seq.).[31] Examine this will conscientiously and record the examination before you give details beyond the amount.
• Guardianship. Before claiming the fee, clarify whether the person concerned had legal capacity and whether a reservation of consent (since 01.01.2023 Section 1825 BGB, previously Section 1903 BGB) has been ordered: a fee agreement with a person lacking legal capacity fails under Sections 104 no. 2, 105 BGB (OLG München, 18.09.2025 – 15 U 1133/25, paras. 16–20);[32] if the guardian refuses approval, the lawyer’s contract is ineffective (OLG München, 18.09.2019 – 15 U 127/19, paras. 9–11).[33]
• Social welfare office. As an emergency helper you file the application for reimbursement of costs within a reasonable period, regularly one month after the end of the emergency; the hospital transmits to the social assistance provider the information necessary for billing (BSG, 18.11.2014 – B 8 SO 9/13 R, paras. 17 et seq.).[34] The emergency helper’s claim exists only as long as the social assistance provider has no knowledge of the case (BSG, 23.08.2013 – B 8 SO 19/12 R, para. 18).[35]
• Name and invoice (counter-position). Limit the name and treatment details in invoice and lawsuit to what is necessary for a conclusive statement of the claim and for replying to objections (BGH, 23.06.1993 – VIII ZR 226/92);[11] if the client disputes the mandate, its conclusion must be set out (BGH, 17.07.2003 – IX ZR 250/02).[36]

Step 8: Coordinate parallel proceedings

Statements in one set of proceedings can be used in the other. Maintain one line in all proceedings and coordinate statements with your adviser before you make them; if investigation proceedings are pending, request an extension for deadlines in the chamber or association proceedings. If you are summoned as a witness in criminal proceedings, check whether your profession is also named in Section 53 StPO: only then may you remain silent; if it is named only in Section 203 StGB, the summons covers the testimony.[37] A police summons obliges you only if there is an instruction from the public prosecutor’s office.[38]

Step 9: Refrain

Excessive comparisons and insinuations, defamatory statements against office holders, more disclosure than necessary, passing documents to uninvolved persons, counter-complaints as a means of pressure (which can itself fall under Section 240 StGB) and leaving the procedural route because it is slow. Lawyers in addition risk a breach of the duty of objectivity (Section 43a(3) BRAO).[1]

Step 10: Document continuously

For every disclosure, record the date, addressee, scope, legal basis and weighing; this allows necessity to be proven later.

Key points

• Secure, keep silent, legal advice before any statement on the substance.
• Without a clarified basis for disclosure, no disclosure; the disclosure plan is in writing.
• Criminal report only on provable facts – and in the knowledge that you give up control.
• One line in all proceedings; document every disclosure.
• Fee: Own lawsuit is permitted (BGH, OLG Brandenburg), only with what is necessary; assignment or debt collection only with specific consent; refusal or revocation is not an automatic evidentiary presumption.

Further reading: Confidentiality in Your Own Case: When Lawyers, Tax Advisers and Doctors May Disclose Client Secrets (the basics for this guide), Attorney liability, Tax adviser liability, Experts, The mandate under legal-services law.

As of: 5 November 2026. This article does not replace advice in an individual case.

Authors:

Dipl.-Math. Peter A. Schramm, expert in actuarial mathematics, Actuary DAV, publicly appointed and sworn by the IHK Frankfurt am Main (Chamber of Industry and Commerce) for actuarial mathematics in private health insurance (www.pkv-gutachter.de)

Dr. Johannes Fiala, PhD, RA (German attorney at law), MBA Financial Services (Univ.), MM (Univ.), Certified Financial and Investment Adviser (A.F.A.), Bankkaufmann (qualified bank clerk) (www.fiala.de)

Rechtsanwalt Dr. Johannes Fiala and the law firm, with a focus on professional law, professional liability and the defence of professionals in Munich, advise lawyers, tax advisers, doctors, actuaries and experts on chamber complaints, criminal reports and threats by their own client, from securing the documents through the disclosure plan to the statement to the chamber, public prosecutor’s office or court. Dr. Fiala has published extensively on questions of professional law and professional liability. Please contact the firm without obligation to discuss your individual situation in an initial consultation.

Sources

1. Section 43a(2), (3) BRAO – gesetze-im-internet.de/brao/__43a.html – accessed 02.11.2026.
2. Section 104(1) VVG – gesetze-im-internet.de/vvg_2008/__104.html – accessed 03.11.2026.
3. Federal Medical Association and National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians, guidance and recommendations on medical confidentiality, data protection and data processing in the doctor’s practice, as of 01.10.2025, Deutsches Ärzteblatt vol. 122, 1 October 2025, nos. 2.4.4.1 and 2.4.4.2 (p. 6) and no. 3.4.1 (pp. 9 f.) – bundesaerztekammer.de/fileadmin/user_upload/BAEK/Themen/Recht/KBV_BAEK_aerztliche_Schweigepflicht_2025.pdf – accessed 03.11.2026; wording of the cited sections read. The guidance is not a legal norm; it names no legal basis for protecting legitimate interests.
4. Section 56(1) BRAO; Section 113(1) BRAO – gesetze-im-internet.de/brao/__56.html, __113.html – accessed 02.11.2026.
5. Section 102(1) no. 3, (3) AO – gesetze-im-internet.de/ao_1977/__102.html – accessed 02.11.2026.
6. BAG, 08.05.2014 – 2 AZR 75/13, para. 31 – bundesarbeitsgericht.de – full text read – accessed 05.11.2026. The facts do not concern a doctor’s fee lawsuit.
7. DIHK model expert regulations (as of 25.06.2025), Sections 9, 11(2), 16, 20 – accessed 02.11.2026. The expert regulations of the appointing body may differ.
8. Section 240(1), (2) StGB – gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__240.html – accessed 02.11.2026.
9. Section 158(1), Section 170(2), Section 172(1), (2) StPO – gesetze-im-internet.de/stpo/__158.html, __170.html, __172.html – accessed 02.11.2026.
10. Section 164(1) StGB – gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__164.html – accessed 02.11.2026.
11. BGH, 23.06.1993 – VIII ZR 226/92 – full text read (prinz.law, case-law database; original PDF linked there) – accessed 05.11.2026. The decision BGHZ 115, 123 referred to is cited separately at [19].
12. OLG Brandenburg, 21.11.2001 – 7 U 216/00, MDR 2002, 905; OLGR Brandenburg 2002, 323 – reasons read verbatim in the excerpts at dejure.org/2001,4659 (full text not freely available there) – accessed 05.11.2026.
13. BGH, 23.04.2013 – II ZR 74/12, paras. 16–17, 22 (an association’s appeals committee is not an arbitral tribunal within the meaning of Sections 1025 et seq. ZPO; review by the ordinary courts not excluded) – full text read (gesetze.co/urteile/II_ZR_74-12) – accessed 05.11.2026.
14. Sections 1029, 1031(1), 1055, 1059(1), (2) ZPO – gesetze-im-internet.de/zpo/__1029.html, __1055.html, __1059.html – accessed 02.11.2026.
15. BGH, 10.10.2013 – III ZR 325/12, paras. 11–13 – lexetius.com/2013,4158 – full text read – accessed 05.11.2026.
16. Hamburg Chamber of Psychotherapists, FAQ professional law (question on passing a fee claim to a debt-collection company) – ptk-hamburg.de/faq/berufsrecht/ – read – accessed 05.11.2026. Chamber view.
17. Section 73(2) no. 3, no. 8, (5) BRAO – gesetze-im-internet.de/brao/__73.html – wording read – accessed 05.11.2026.
18. Section 11(1), (2) RVG; Section 14(3) RVG – gesetze-im-internet.de/rvg/__11.html, __14.html – wording read – accessed 05.11.2026.
19. BGH, 10.07.1991 – VIII ZR 296/90, BGHZ 115, 123 – full text with official headnote read – accessed 05.11.2026.
20. Section 49b(4) BRAO – gesetze-im-internet.de/brao/__49b.html – wording read – accessed 05.11.2026.
21. Section 64(1), (2) StBerG – gesetze-im-internet.de/stberg/__64.html – wording read – accessed 05.11.2026. Content: assignment to tax advisers, lawyers, auditors and professional practice companies permitted; otherwise only with express consent in text form or where the claim has been finally established; the acquirer is bound to confidentiality in the same way.
22. BGH, 07.03.1996 – 4 StR 737/95, BGHSt 42, 73 (revocation of the release; prohibition on use of evidence) – hrr-strafrecht.de/hrr/4/95/4-737-95.pdf – full text read – accessed 05.11.2026.
23. Federal Medical Association and National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians, guidance and recommendations on medical confidentiality, data protection and data processing in the doctor’s practice, as of 01.10.2025, Deutsches Ärzteblatt vol. 122, 1 October 2025, no. 2.4.1 (consent: revocable at any time with effect for the future; sufficiently specific; billing agencies) – bundesaerztekammer.de/fileadmin/user_upload/BAEK/Themen/Recht/KBV_BAEK_aerztliche_Schweigepflicht_2025.pdf – wording read – accessed 05.11.2026.
24. Section 383(1) no. 6, Section 385(2) ZPO – gesetze-im-internet.de/zpo/__383.html and __385.html – accessed 02.11.2026.
25. BGH, 06.06.2019 – IX ZR 272/17, paras. 12–14, 22–26 (assignment of medical and dental fee claims without consent void under Section 134 BGB, Section 203 StGB, because Section 402 BGB requires information and handover of documents; Section 402 BGB can be waived expressly or by implication, for instance in a silent assignment with authorisation to collect given to the assignor, who then sues as litigation representative) – full text read (rws-verlag.de/aktuell/wirtschaftsrecht-aktuell/bgh-urteil-vom-6-juni-2019-ix-zr-27217-60816; ECLI:DE:BGH:2019:060619UIXZR272.17.0) – accessed 05.11.2026.
26. BGH, 24.08.2016 – VIII ZR 182/15, paras. 17–19 (voluntary litigation representation: effective authorisation and own interest worthy of protection, including an economic one; a seller of a claim can have such an interest; mere technical facilitation of the conduct of the proceedings is not enough) – decision text read (lorenz.userweb.mwn.de/urteile/viiizr182_15.htm) – accessed 05.11.2026.
27. BGH, 28.04.2005 – III ZR 351/04, NJW 2005, 2069, para. 12 – full text read – accessed 05.11.2026.
28. BGH, 27.11.1991 – XII ZR 226/90, BGHZ 116, 184 = FamRZ 1992, 291 (reasons: “If the hospital also wishes to bind the other spouse, it must insist that he co-signs the treatment contract.”) – prinz.law/urteile/bgh/XII_ZR_226-90 – full text read – retrieved 06.11.2026.
29. BVerfG, 08.10.2015 – 1 BvR 455/14 (chamber decision), para. 12 – bundesverfassungsgericht.de – full text read – accessed 05.11.2026.
30. BGH, 31.05.1983 – VI ZR 259/81, VersR 1983, 834, 836 – full text read (Haufe) – accessed 05.11.2026.
31. BGH, 26.02.2013 – VI ZR 359/11, paras. 9, 11, 12 (facts: nursing home and social insurance provider) – full text read (rewis.io) – accessed 05.11.2026.
32. OLG München, 18.09.2025 – 15 U 1133/25 (order; lower court LG München I, 26.11.2024 – 4 O 10860/24), paras. 16–20 – full text read – accessed 05.11.2026.
33. OLG München, 18.09.2019 – 15 U 127/19 (judgment), paras. 9–11 – decision text read (IWW retrieval no. 211641, iww.de) – accessed 05.11.2026.
34. BSG, 18.11.2014 – B 8 SO 9/13 R, BSGE 117, 261, paras. 17 et seq. – full text read (gesetze.co) – accessed 05.11.2026. Date and citation as cited in BSG, 13.07.2023 – B 8 SO 11/22 R.
35. BSG, 23.08.2013 – B 8 SO 19/12 R, BSGE 114, 161, para. 18 – full text read (gesetze.co) – accessed 05.11.2026. Date and citation as cited in BSG, 13.07.2023 – B 8 SO 11/22 R.
36. BGH, 17.07.2003 – IX ZR 250/02, INF 2003, 722 no. 19, reasons III. 1. – full text read (NWB database, doc. 214237) – accessed 05.11.2026.
37. Section 53(1) sentence 1 no. 3, (2) sentence 1 StPO – gesetze-im-internet.de/stpo/__53.html – accessed 02.11.2026.
38. Section 163(3) StPO – gesetze-im-internet.de/stpo/__163.html – accessed 02.11.2026.