Yes. Privilege is almost a non-issue in German civil litigation. It does, however, have greater significance in the context of dawn raids, e.g., in cartel cases or other compliance-related matters.

In particular, the confidentiality of communications with defense counsel is effectively guaranteed and requires that privilege applies to such communication. The same applies to documents prepared for the purpose of defense.

So far, regional courts have been reluctant to grant privilege in cases of internal investigations (at least unless the company is already accused and the internal investigation is directed at preparing the defense). The Regional Court of Bonn held that documents prepared during an internal cartel compliance investigation may be seized at a subsidiary company's premises if the external lawyers who prepared the documents were retained by the parent company and not for the immediate purpose of preparing the defense of the subsidiary company. According to the court, only communications between an accused and the lawyer instructed to prepare the defense are protected.

The Regional Court of Hamburg reached a similar decision. According to its judgment, a lawyer's notes taken during an interview with an employee of the client in the course of an internal investigation could be seized, as there was no relationship of mutual trust between the employee and the lawyer. This was because the lawyer was engaged by the employer to assess its position vis-à-vis the employee in relation to potential damage claims.

Both decisions have been criticized, and there is scope to argue that they are based on too strict an interpretation of the law. Further, a change in the Criminal Procedure Code in 2011 may support the view that at least documents from internal investigations in the lawyer's possession must not be seized (Regional Court of Mannheim). Yet, the German Federal Constitutional Court in 2018 took a strict view. It held that documents prepared during an internal investigation (launched by the parent company with the intent to submit the results of the investigation to the US Department of Justice) can be seized at an international law firm's German office (as the documents were not prepared for the defense of an accused). The law firm had argued that the right to choose and practice a profession (in combination with general fundamental rights) includes protection of the relationship of mutual trust between an attorney and its client. As a consequence, documents prepared during an internal investigation should enjoy privilege, irrespective of whether the company who mandated the lawyers is accused in criminal or regulatory proceedings in Germany. This argument has, however, been dismissed by the Federal Constitutional Court. It reasoned, inter alia, that even though a German office was involved, the law firm itself as an international entity (a general partnership in the state of Ohio, USA) could not invoke this particular constitutional right that only applies to German citizens and entities.

At present, the European Court of Human Rights is dealing with two complaints from the international law firm and some of the lawyers employed there against Germany (1022/19 and 1125/19).

In late 2021, another raid took place at a large German law firm, and documents compiled during an internal investigation conducted for a client were seized. It is not publicly known whether the law firm has taken legal action against this.

There is a high risk that such communications will not be considered as privileged. This is particularly true if the subject is not (yet) accused in criminal proceedings and/or the interview is conducted with a person which is not the lawyer's client.