The following cases come from my own experience. They disclose nothing from client matters and name no one involved. Each case describes the situation, what makes the cooperation work and what law contributes. Sometimes that contribution is large; sometimes it consists in law holding back.
The collection is growing. Further cases will be added, including from teaching.
An international reading group
Situation. People from several countries read Hegel’s “Groundlines of the Philosophy of Right” together, section by section, in regular sessions live online. They include lawyers, philosophers and interested readers without specialist training. The text is available on grundlinien.de in German, English and Spanish.
What holds. The shared third: a text that is difficult for everyone and that nobody owns alone. A fixed rhythm, in which each session starts where the last one stopped. A chair who gives the floor and makes sure the quieter voices are heard. And an attitude in which every contribution counts towards understanding, including the question that later turns out to be a misunderstanding. What Hegel calls “being with oneself in the other” shows itself here: the other’s objection is not fended off but becomes part of one’s own understanding. That needs no shared room, only the shared text.
What law contributes. Little, and that is fine. A reading group needs no contract. Hegel’s text is in the public domain, whereas recent translations and editions may be protected by copyright, which is why the group points to a freely accessible version instead of circulating copies. If the group grows and wants to raise funds or host events, the question of a legal form arises, for instance an association.
Language lessons online
Situation. One-to-one lessons in a foreign language, live online, with a teacher in another country, arranged through a platform, once or several times a week.
What holds. Regularity, more than the length of any one lesson. A shared document in which new words and mistakes are recorded and which both continue between lessons. Good sound, because in language learning, listening is decisive. And a relationship that goes beyond the task: you hear about everyday life in the other country, and the language comes alive because you talk about real things.
What law contributes. It first asks who has a contract with whom: the learner with the teacher, or with the platform. The answer lies in the platform’s terms. The teaching itself is usually a service (Service contract). Because it takes place synchronously and in both directions, and the learner can contact the teacher without particular effort, it does not fall under the German Distance Learning Protection Act (Fernunterrichtsschutzgesetz, FernUSG), according to a judgment of the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof, BGH) of 5 February 2026 (III ZR 137/25). For the purposes of the Act, teacher and learner are then not spatially separated.
A video hearing
Situation. A civil case. The court allows a party’s lawyer to attend the oral hearing by audio-visual transmission. The presiding judge conducts the hearing from the courtroom; the lawyer takes part from his office.
What holds. The form of the hearing itself. There is someone in the chair, a fixed order of speaking and a record. Good sound is indispensable, because whoever misses a word from the bench cannot reply to it. Documents are at hand, since they cannot be passed across the table. In my experience, such hearings are often more focused than in the courtroom.
What law contributes. A great deal. Section 128a of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO) allows video hearings in suitable cases. The presiding judge may permit or order participation by audio-visual transmission; an order can be challenged within two weeks, and a request to take part by video should be granted. Participants may not record. Here the law insists on a place: the presiding judge conducts the video hearing from the court, wherever the others are sitting. More under Resolving conflicts.
A family across borders
Situation. The members of a family live in different countries. They see each other a few times a year but talk by video call every week, often for only a few minutes.
What holds. The regular return. A small routine that comes up each time. Showing, not only telling: the flat, the meal, the exercise book. Playing with the younger ones. And permission to disappear for a moment. The details are under Meeting online regularly.
What law contributes. Above all, restraint. What happens in a purely family setting is exempt from the GDPR (Art. 2(2)(c) GDPR). The family sets its own rules, and that is the appropriate constitution for this cooperation. One limit remains: recordings only if everyone agrees, and no casual passing-on of pictures of the children.
Playing together
Situation. A group regularly plays a tactical team game online. The players are in different places and talk over a voice channel. Each round lasts a few minutes and demands quick, coordinated decisions.
What holds. Clear roles that everyone knows. Short, precise calls instead of long explanations. Trust that the others will do their part, because nobody can keep an eye on everything at once. Recognition of a teammate’s good move, and the ability to put a lost round behind you together. Playing this way, people learn to rely on each other. Unlike at work, this trust is tested every few minutes: each round shows whether the others held their position.
What law contributes. The game itself is a model of law as the constitution of cooperation. Its rules make acting together possible in the first place, the platform’s terms of use protect against cheating, moderators settle disputes, and youth protection limits who may play. Why play means so much for cooperation is explained under Play.
Read on: Good practice for working together online ยท Misconceptions about online cooperation