Employment law: employers or employees? How the firm website picks a side

Why the side matters so much in employment law

In many areas of law, a firm's target group is roughly the same kind of person, whichever side they are on. Employment law is different. An employee who received notice on Friday searches on her phone on Sunday evening for “Anwalt Kündigung” (lawyer, dismissal) and wants to know whether she can reach someone by Monday. A managing director who has to cut three positions or is negotiating with a new works council searches calmly, compares firms and asks himself whether the firm understands his business.

Both need different texts, different evidence and a different tone. If you address both with a single “Employment law” page, you write either too combatively for businesses or too dryly for someone who has just lost their job. Then there is the economic side: employee mandates are often one-off, frequently billed through legal expenses insurance and arrive in waves. Employer mandates are less often urgent, but recurring and usually paid by the hour or as a flat fee.

The table alone shows why the basic rule from the post practice area pages on the website applies here in particular: two target groups with different situations justify two pages. On the website, employment law for employees and employment law for employers are practically two areas of law.

Three models: one side or both

Three models have proven themselves for employment law firms. Which one fits depends less on marketing than on the question of which mandates you want to have in five years.

A fourth model is common in practice but rarely intended: a single “Employment law” page that somehow addresses everyone. It mainly attracts the enquiries that come anyway, that is urgent employee cases. If you actually want to advise more businesses, you end up with exactly the mandates you want fewer of. How to choose a niche in general and show it on your website is explained in the post niche and positioning for firms.

Acting for both sides: conflicts of interest and conflict checks

Acting for employers and employees is permitted in both countries, just not against each other in the same matter. In Austria, a lawyer must decline a mandate if she has represented the opposing party in the same or a related matter (§ 10 Abs 1 RAO). In Germany, a lawyer may not act if he has already advised or represented another client with conflicting interests in the same legal matter (§ 43a Abs. 4 BRAO, set out in more detail in § 3 BORA). The prohibition generally extends to the whole firm.

In practice this means: if you advise a business on an ongoing basis, you will hardly bring an unfair dismissal claim against exactly that business, even if legally it were not the same matter. The impression alone harms the relationship. Firms that act for both sides therefore need a conflict check before they get into the substance of an enquiry.

How a contact page with such notes is structured is shown in the post the contact page of a firm.

In Germany: three weeks, § 12a ArbGG and legal expenses insurance

The market for employee mandates in Germany is shaped by one deadline: anyone who wants to claim that a dismissal is socially unjustified or invalid for other reasons must file a claim with the labour court within three weeks of receiving the written notice (§ 4 KSchG). If the deadline is missed, the dismissal is as a rule deemed valid. People search with corresponding urgency, and search terms like “anwalt kündigungsschutzklage” are fiercely contested: large law firm brands and portals run nationwide ads for them. What such ads cost and when they pay off for a smaller firm is covered in the post Google Ads for firms.

The second particularity concerns costs. In first-instance judgment proceedings, each party bears its own lawyer's fees, even if it wins (§ 12a Abs. 1 ArbGG). Before concluding the representation agreement, you must point out this exclusion of cost reimbursement. On the website, this is a topic you should explain openly instead of springing it on people in the first meeting. Many employees have legal expenses insurance that covers employment law, usually after a waiting period; trade union members get legal protection through their union. The insurer may not take your clients away from you: policyholders can freely choose their lawyer, in court and out of court (§ 127 Abs. 1 VVG).

May the firm advertise a “kostenlose Ersteinschätzung” (free initial assessment)? Out-of-court advice can be freely agreed in Germany under § 34 RVG, and a short free assessment is mostly considered permissible; if in doubt, ask your bar association. What matters is that the statement is true: say what is included (for example a phone assessment of the deadline and the prospects of success, up to 15 minutes) and what costs money afterwards. “Free first consultation” in large letters, behind which there is only a callback without substance, is misleading. The limits of advertising are described in advertising for lawyers in Germany.

In Austria: mandates despite free advice from the Arbeiterkammer

In Austria, employment law firms on the employee side compete with a strong, free offer. The Arbeiterkammern (Chambers of Labour) advise their members on employment and social law and grant them legal protection through court representation (§ 7 Abs 1 AKG). Before the labour and social court, not only lawyers but also officials and employees of a statutory interest group or trade union may represent parties, and in the first instance, under certain conditions, even works council members (§ 40 ASGG). The ÖGB (Austrian Trade Union Federation) also offers its members legal protection. On the employer side, the Wirtschaftskammer (Chamber of Commerce) advises its member businesses on employment law, in some federal states up to representation in court.

Competing with this offer by claiming “We are better than the AK” is neither wise nor unproblematic under professional rules. Disparaging comparisons look unprofessional, and many employees are in good hands with the AK. Successful firms position themselves where the free advice does not reach or is not wanted:

• Managing directors and board members: Anyone who manages a corporation (Kapitalgesellschaft) is not a member of the Arbeiterkammer (§ 10 Abs 2 Z 2 AKG). In other legal forms, the same applies to senior executives with a lasting decisive influence on the management of the business. For them, a page “Employment law for managing directors and executives” is often the best entry point on the employee side.
• Negotiating instead of suing: Termination agreements (Auflösungsvereinbarung), severance (Abfertigung) and special payments, non-compete clauses, bonus arrangements. Many people want representation here that negotiates for them from the start.
• Speed and availability: An appointment within 48 hours, also by video, is an honest argument if you keep to it.
• The employer side: Small and medium-sized businesses looking for an ongoing contact for employment contracts, dismissals and dealing with the works council, instead of asking someone new for every issue.
• Cross-border cases: Postings, employees living in Germany or Hungary, multilingual advice.

Deadlines in Austria are short too, but work differently than in Germany. A dismissal for a prohibited motive or on grounds of social unfairness is challenged (Anfechtung) before the labour and social court. In businesses with a works council, the employee can usually challenge the dismissal herself within two weeks of receiving it; if the works council expressly objected to the dismissal, it can first challenge it within one week, and the employee's two weeks only start after that. In businesses where a works council would have to be set up but none exists, the two-week deadline runs from receipt of the notice (§ 105 Abs 4 and § 107 ArbVG). Similar rules apply to summary dismissals (§ 106 ArbVG). Write on your website “You usually have only 14 days to challenge a dismissal” and point to a quick conversation, without promising details that depend on the business.

Unlike in Germany, in Austria the losing party in individual employment disputes generally bears the costs, even in the first instance. One exception is challenging a dismissal under the ArbVG: there is no cost reimbursement in the first and second instance, so each side bears its own costs (§ 58 Abs 1 ASGG). The cost risk is one reason why employees go to the AK, and a topic your website should answer openly: what the first consultation costs, whether legal expenses insurance steps in and how you assess the risk before filing a claim. How lawyers in Austria may advertise is explained in advertising for lawyers in Austria.

The page structure: two entrances, clear paths

If you act for both sides, build the website so that every visitor finds her entrance within seconds. If you act for one side only, say so in the first sentence of the homepage. The other basics of a law firm website, from the team page to the imprint, are described in the website for lawyers.

What does not appear on the employer page matters too: success stories from unfair dismissal cases, sentences like “We get the maximum severance for you” or reviews from employees. An HR manager who reads such things rightly asks whether the firm works for him. Conversely, “Implementing dismissals with legal certainty” does not belong on the page for employees. So it is best to show reviews on the relevant landing page, not in a shared list on the homepage.

Wording for both sides

Tone decides whether someone feels addressed. For employees that means: short, calm, with the deadline and the next step. For businesses: factual, reliable, with an eye on planning and risk. Both remain factual information within the meaning of § 43b BRAO and the advertising rules of the RL-BA 2015, not fighting talk.

The page titles in search results should also name the side clearly: “Anwalt für Arbeitgeber in München | Kanzlei Muster” (lawyer for employers in Munich) and “Kündigung erhalten? Arbeitsrecht für Arbeitnehmer in München” (received notice? Employment law for employees in Munich). That way only those who are meant click, and your pages do not compete for the same search. More on optimising such pages in SEO for lawyers.

Typical mistakes of employment law firms

• One page for everyone: “We advise employers and employees on all matters of employment law” is correct, but convinces no one.
• Hidden deadline: Three weeks in Germany, usually 14 days in Austria: anyone who does not see this immediately keeps searching.
• Costs left unsaid: § 12a ArbGG in Germany and the cost risk in Austria in particular are questions people want answered before they call.
• Employer page without evidence: No industries, no processes, no contact person. Businesses buy reliability, not areas of law.
• No conflict check: A form that asks for the full facts straight away without knowing the opposing party.
• Writing against the interest groups: Disparaging remarks about the AK, ÖGB, trade unions or chambers damage your own credibility.
• Expensive ads pointing to the wrong page: Ads for “Anwalt Kündigung” lead to the homepage instead of the matching landing page.