Literature The eulogies on this novel are incomprehensible.
"Justice Palace" by Petra Morsbach is sold as a legal novel, which was the only one that aroused my interest. For this he was highly praised and given prizes, which again and again emphasized the tedious, over nine years of research work by the author, with which she allegedly draws a fitting picture of justice. But over long stretches, "Justizpalast" seemed more like a women's novel:
So he came out of the canteen while she was on her way there. For years she had not seen him and recognized him immediately. He had become a bit heavier over the years, but as strange as ever. Alfred, gray Cord suit, white shirt, anthracite tie, walked with his soft step across the linoleum of the canteen like an apparition, spun into a cocoon of intelligence and dignity. Palpitations!
Or should I say as the cliché of a women's novel, because I do not really have experience in this profession? However, I have enough experience with courts to know that judges wear white ties. But that could also have attracted attention if one had looked at some research during the research.
In terms of cliché, the protagonist experiences an overdramatic childhood (Nazi grandpa, actor halodri father, breast cancer mum, residual cancer aunts), as all in the novel lug adult childhood traumas that are supposed to explain all problems and quirks.
The woodcut-like characters, including the protagonist who becomes judge because her grandfather was a judge, do not arouse any enthusiasm. Linguistically, hardly anything crossed my path that would have knocked me off my stool. So stay action and content. Since the novel moves purposefully, but leisurely by the philistine life of the judge Thirza Zorniger. By the age of half at least, you realize that Morsbach on the one hand überrecherchiert and has too many notes that somehow still has to accommodate, but on the other hand, nine years of research to replace any law school.
Because the book is full of mistakes. Morsbach writes like a student in the second semester, which has snapped up technical terms and phrases and wants to accommodate them in a retreat in panic, so at least the experienced reader but only demonstrates their ignorance. One wonders, however, why the publisher did not let a lawyer copy. (I would have had time.)
When it comes to donating a holiday apartment, Morsbach writes:
The administrative act had been carried out by the widow.
That hurts! A donation is not an administrative act. The latter requires, as one can already guess, an action of the administration, not the widow (who, if ever in her role as heiress, would not be legally relevant as a widow).
To abolish the principle of fault in divorces Morsbach writes that "the case law has changed." Not correct. The law has been changed.
Another example:
In the fifties, the prevailing view was that boundless contract freedom is ruining competition.
So a separate legislation was created, what she means UWG and GWB. Firstly, laws are passed and not "legislation created", because legislation is the act or, with well-intentioned interpretation, perhaps the legislature as an organ. A "separate legislation" would therefore be a special parliament. Secondly, "the ruling opinion" does not suddenly realize anything, but various opinions are represented, one of which may one day become one of the ruling ones. This opinion is important to students, but completely irrelevant to legislation. The BGH, on the other hand, according to Morsbach, represents "different opinions", which again mix categories of doctrine and judiciary.
If it upon notification of an order fee instead of, as it would be right, "in avoiding a nuisance" means that this can be a careless mistake. Or it shows that Morsbach did not even anticipate the function of a regulatory fee.
According to the blurb, Morsbach has spoken with more than 50 lawyers for her book. Maybe it was the wrong ones. And me the statement that one for the state examination.
To have in mind, to doubt if there were these talks. Because you do not learn any paragraphs in law school by heart, the author could have really told every student in the first semester. Why should one also, where one has the legal texts but in the exam?
Conclusion: For non-lawyers dull and incomprehensible, extremely annoying for lawyers. Anyone who wants to read good books on the law must continue to resort to the work of lawyers. Even with John Grisham or Scott Turow you learn more. And on my blog anyway.