Contents
- OLG Naumburg: Procurement Support and Legal Services under the RDG
- Definition and Delimitation of Legal Services under the RDG
- Procurement Service Providers: Professional Profile and Legal Framework
- Practical Implications for Public Contracting Authorities
- Opportunities and Limits for Service Providers and Law Firms
OLG Naumburg: Procurement Support and Legal Services under the RDG
In its judgment of 18 June 2026, the Higher Regional Court (OLG) of Naumburg provided an important clarification for procurement practice: external tendering and procurement services do not automatically constitute unauthorized legal services simply because they closely follow procurement law. The decisive factor is whether the service provider makes independent legal decisions in individual cases or merely implements standardized, administratively shaped processes.
The proceedings originated from a public contracting authority’s tender for external tendering services. A law firm specializing in procurement law challenged this tender as a violation of the Legal Services Act (RDG) and asserted a claim for injunctive relief under competition law. The Regional Court of Halle initially ruled in favor of the law firm, considering the tendered services to be predominantly legal services. However, the OLG Naumburg completely overturned this decision on appeal and rejected the application for a preliminary injunction. The main proceedings are being conducted in parallel before the Regional Court of Halle.
Definition and Delimitation of Legal Services under the RDG
The court first clarifies: a legal service is any activity in a specific third-party matter that requires a legal assessment of the individual case and goes beyond a purely schematic application of legal norms. At the same time, the Senate emphasizes that many typical procurement-related tasks, such as the use of procurement management software, completion of forms, formal review of bids, technical and economic preparation of documents, or the drafting of standardized announcement texts, do not generally constitute independent legal advice.
Where legal aspects are involved, a routine or schematic application of clearly defined rules is often sufficient. Such activities either do not fall under the concept of legal services at all or are permissible under Section 5 RDG as ancillary services to the professional profile of the procurement service provider. The decisive factor is that legally sensitive core decisions, such as the choice of procedure, lot formation, suitability and award evaluation, exclusion of bidders, or the response to complex objections, remain with the contracting authority knowledgeable in procurement law.
Procurement Service Providers: Professional Profile and Legal Framework
The decision is of particular practical importance for the professional profile of procurement service providers. The OLG Naumburg assumes that this is a standardized professional activity, the focus of which lies in economic, technical, and administrative services. Procurement-related legal applications are typically associated with the profession but remain subordinate in content and scope.
Against this background, the court clarifies: the Legal Services Act serves to protect those see-king legal advice, legal transactions, and the legal system from unqualified legal services and not to protect the legal profession from competition. A blanket privileging of all procurement-relevant activities in favor of lawyers would disproportionately restrict the professional freedom of non-lawyer service providers. Prohibitions are only considered if there is a serious risk to the aforementio-ned protected interests.
Practical Implications for Public Contracting Authorities
For public contracting authorities, the judgment provides practical clarity in designing tenders for external procurement support:
The service description should make it clear that the contractor primarily assumes administrative, organizational, and technical tasks.
Legally significant decisions and approvals, especially regarding evaluation, exclusion of bids, reasons for award, and handling of objections, should clearly remain with the contracting authority or the legally trained specialist department.
Standardized workflows, manuals, and procurement management software can and should be used without automatically triggering a legal advisory obligation for the service provider.
It is important that the tender does not aim to transfer full legal responsibility for the procurement procedure to the external service provider. The clearer the description of roles and responsibilities, the lower the risk of entering the area of unauthorized legal services.
Opportunities and Limits for Service Providers and Law Firms
For procurement service providers, the decision strengthens their position: they can continue to offer standardized, software-supported procurement support, documentation, deadline management, and evaluation assistance, as long as no independent legal advice in individual cases is owed. Procurement law firms, in turn, receive a clearer demarcation: competition law challenges are particularly promising where tenders actually target autonomous, legally formative, or evaluative core activities.
In practice, a careful analysis of the service description is recommended for both sides. Where procurement-relevant services are clearly administrative and schematic, the OLG Naumburg’s approach means there is a significantly lower risk of conflict with the RDG. However, where legal individual case decisions or complex legal assessments are to be outsourced, legal expertise remains necessary and the scope of the Legal Services Act is opened.
