Notary J. Wöflein takes his time for his clients. He listens attentively and provides valuable advice on the matter. The consultation is excellent and reliable. I highly recommend him!

We wanted to buy an apartment in Marburg. Unfortunately, we had left it to the real estate agent to choose the notary, which turned out to be a mistake. We actually had a very polite conversation with Mr. Wöflein. Unfortunately, except for this one conversation, throughout the entire process, we got the impression that the notary was primarily concerned with the seller's side and less with us. In particular, the second draft of the purchase agreement suddenly contained content that appeared to have come from the real estate agent without prior consultation (and had simply been inserted by the notary without any notice to us). The purchase ultimately fell through for this reason, among others (but not exclusively). I would recommend buyers to choose a notary they trust and not leave it to a real estate agent. It's also important to note that the draft purchase agreement will be expensive even if the purchase process is canceled, even if another buyer later pays for the almost identical document again (this is a system error, however, and not the fault of the individual notary). Overall, actually one point, two points for the polite communication despite everything.

I was a client of Dr. Rienhoff twice – once in an administrative court proceeding, and later in a social court proceeding before the Federal Social Court. In both cases, my experience was disappointing. In the first proceeding before the administrative court, I asked Dr. Rienhoff to forward a written submission. He categorically refused, stating that it was merely "speculation" without evidence. What he failed to explain, however, was that I could have presented my assumptions, even without evidence, by submitting a statement of facts and requesting the taking of evidence. The court later stated verbatim in its ruling: "Even in the appeal proceedings, the applicant was unable to demonstrate that he might have a claim against the federal authority involved for the requested extension of the retention period […]." It continued: "The applicant was unable to provide any factual basis for this suspicion." This demonstration could certainly have been achieved with legal support – however, it was prevented by his blanket dismissal of my request. In the second case, a specific judge who had served as the preliminary rapporteur was not challenged in a timely manner, even though I had explicitly requested it. When I later asked him to submit a new letter for a new application for a retrial, he refused, stating that the case was closed. While he did forward my written submissions to the court, carefully checking for potentially criminally relevant statements—especially those that could have been problematic—he did not address or correct any substantive errors or legal miscalculations. For example, I mistakenly drafted an application for a retrial against a dismissal order, even though it should have been directed against the main proceedings. Although Dr. Rienhoff had previously reviewed the draft, I received no notification of this error. The application was subsequently dismissed as inadmissible. When I later drafted the correct application myself, he refused to forward it. Furthermore, I found his communication extremely terse. Without being explicitly asked, he provides neither reasons nor explanations. He practically had to be urged to comment at all – I find that unprofessional, especially in sensitive cases. I had the impression that there was little willingness to actively support me or to take responsibility for obvious oversights. The communication ultimately became inappropriately harsh. This is my personal experience. Other clients may come to different conclusions. After the publication of this objective and documented assessment, Dr. Rienhoff threatened me with legal action. I then informed him that all his statements could be substantiated by email correspondence and court documents. I found it noteworthy that Dr. Rienhoff is a member of the Republican Lawyers' Association (RAV) – an organization that advocates for fundamental rights, respect, and social responsibility. It was all the more irritating for me to be described by him in an email as a "conspiracy theorist" – behavior that is already borderline for any lawyer, but in no way compatible with the professional ethical standards of a RAV member.