BEYOND ADVICE
LITIGATION
CONTRACT DESIGN
DISPUTE RESOLUTION
INTERNATIONAL CONFLICT COUNSEL
Others advise – LEGAL+ takes over.
Litigation requires taking responsibility.
Anyone who stands before a court cannot advise from the sidelines. LEGAL+ takes over – responsibility, leadership, decision-making. Every case is handled as a case of its own, with the same care with which one would defend one’s own interests. Taking over means not shifting risk back to the client but carrying it: with a clear position, thorough preparation and the willingness to assume responsibility in conflict – until judgment or until a solution that endures.
Where LEGAL+ takes over
LEGAL+ takes over where your commercial relationships must also be legally supported, enforced or defended. Typical situations are complex contracts and projects of significant economic relevance, where you do not wish to leave the legal foundations to chance, or where collaboration with a contractual partner begins to destabilise.
The spectrum ranges from contract work in complex or long-term business relationships – such as distribution, supply, project or other commercial framework agreements – to already escalated situations: breaking down supply and project relationships, payment and receivables conflicts with serious financial impact, substantial defect constellations, liability cases or consequential breaches of contract – also in a cross-border context.
LEGAL+ takes over when “letting things run” is no longer a responsible option and the situation requires clear structure, robust assessment and, quite simply, enforcement. Contracts are designed in such a way that they actually withstand dispute. Disputes are conducted with the necessary firmness to assert your interests to the greatest extent possible.
Read here which disputes LEGAL+ takes over.
Read here which contract types LEGAL+ regularly works with.
Rechtsanwalt Daniel J. Meier-Greve | BEYOND ADVICE
Why LEGAL+
Because LEGAL+ takes over.
LEGAL+ stands for more legal responsibility, personal involvement and efficiency. Your mandate is handled by an experienced litigator who personally conducts the case and thinks litigation and the underlying contracts together. This means for you in practical terms:
• fewer opinions
• more decisions
• more and faster results
LEGAL+ takes control of your case while you can concentrate on your business. This type of assumption of responsibility is what “Beyond Advice” stands for.
- fewer opinions
- more decisions
- more and faster results
LEGAL+ takes control of your case while you can concentrate on your business. This type of assumption of responsibility is what “Beyond Advice” stands for.
REFERENCES
CLIENT TESTIMONIALS
We first met Attorney Daniel Meier-Greve in 2014 and can state that we found a highly competent expert in the field of business law. It is rare nowadays to encounter such a dedicated lawyer—one who not only listens to a company’s concerns but also shows remarkable initiative in familiarizing himself with and thinking along the lines of the company’s philosophy.
On the basis of a recommendation, we retained Attorney Meier-Greve in a highly complex litigation matter. He familiarized himself with the case in an impressively short time. He identified litigation risks without glossing over them and then developed and successfully implemented a targeted strategy together with us. Particularly noteworthy is his consistently transparent approach and his dedication. He truly takes every case personally and is available to his clients around the clock!
Many thanks for your long-standing, dedicated support, which ultimately led to a very successful outcome.
It was a real uphill battle.
In search of a litigation lawyer, we were introduced to Attorney Daniel Meier-Greve through a recommendation and entrusted him with a complex dispute. From the very first contact, Mr. Meier-Greve gave us the reassuring sense that we were in good hands. After the initial alignment, I was able to fully refocus on my daily business while Mr. Meier-Greve took care of everything else and kept me transparently informed. I particularly value his pragmatic approach and his strength as a skilled negotiator. Today I can look back on a successfully resolved matter and know without hesitation whom I will entrust again with JPL’s legal affairs when needed.
"Dear Mr. Meier-Greve,
I relied on my gut instinct after our initial meeting when awarding the mandate and, as I now know, I was absolutely right.
I would now like to thank you.
First of all, thank you for your patience and openness in responding to my questions and objections, and also for your constant dedication to presenting the best possible outcome in court.
With your professional expertise, you explained all the legal issues and procedures to me in a clear and understandable way, which gave me a great sense of confidence.
I always had the feeling that you took your mandate very seriously and were fully committed to the case.
My impression was that you were always attentive to my needs and that you consistently went above and beyond throughout the entire process.
I would also like to add another word of praise: at all times I felt that you genuinely cared about me as a client and that you were truly pleased to be able to help me and win the case for me.
You didn’t ‘just do your job’ — it was evident that you had the motivation to do everything possible to support me as your client. I found this especially positive and consider it exceptional.
I was very pleased to handle this case together with you. Looking ahead, I hope I will not need your services in another civil lawsuit. But I am very glad to have met you as a remarkable person.
Best regards to Hamburg
LATEST ARTICLES

On the bias of judges in civil proceedings: If judges do not read a party’s pleadings, this can justify a motion for recusal!
Following on from my overview article on the application for recusal pursuant to Section 42 ZPO, I would like to report on an interesting ruling by the Higher Regional Court of Karlsruhe. According to this ruling, a judge’s failure to read the pleadings submitted by a party can give rise to concerns of bias. In the case in question, a judge had overlooked an application for recusal directed against him, as he had forwarded the pleading containing it unread to the opposing party for comment. This violates the so-called duty to wait pursuant to Section 47 (1) ZPO, according to which only “official acts that cannot be postponed” are permitted from the filing of an application for recusal until it has been dealt with.

BGH on the legal consequences of thwarting evidence
In legal disputes, it often happens that one party makes it difficult for the opposing party to provide evidence. In these cases, the question then arises as to whether and, if so, with what legal consequences it can be assumed that evidence has been obstructed.

Guide to procedural law: Easier way to claim damages for exhaust gas manipulation – On the BGH ruling of June 26, 2023 (Ref. Via ZR 335/21)
This article attempts to classify and evaluate the current ruling of the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) of June 26, 2023 (Ref. Via ZR 335/21) on the subject of compensation for damages due to emissions manipulation by car manufacturers.
CONTACT
kontakt@legal-plus.eu
+49 (40) 57199 74 80
+49 (170) 1203 74 0
Bleichenbrücke 11 D-20354 Hamburg
Benefit from my active network!
I look forward to our networking.
This post is also available in: DE



