Patricia Cronemeyer is a lawyer through and through. The interview quickly turns to considerations, rights and, of course, paragraphs. Cronemeyer is passionate about her profession, for which she is often on the road. In addition to her office in Hamburg, where her law firm Cronemeyer Haisch is based, she also has an office in Hollywood - so that she can also support her international clientele directly on site overseas.

Ms. Cronemeyer, what have you done recently?

That's an interesting question, of course, but I'm not going to answer it. You know the saying: you don't talk about money. I advise my clients to do the same.

Why is that?

Income is a private matter and anyone who wants to protect it should not talk about it. Otherwise, information about yourself or, in some cases, about your own family may be disclosed, the implications of which cannot be estimated in advance. My advice is therefore always: when it comes to financial matters, don't talk about your circumstances. Otherwise, this may have disadvantages that go far beyond purely press law issues.

What could the disadvantages be?

Clients who come to us are often wealthy people from large companies or groups, but also celebrities. They have earned or inherited their money themselves. It is not uncommon for these people to be rightly afraid that disclosing their ownership or income situation will bring them to the attention of criminals. This can then culminate in a kidnapping, for example. A specialist I know advises many wealthy people on precisely these issues and trains families on how to deal with threatening situations ranging from kidnapping to blackmail. All of these can be consequences if wealth is openly reported by individuals.

Forbes once featured one of your clients in its annual list of the richest people, even though she didn't want it. How did you deal with that?

We immediately took legal action against this because we felt it was inappropriate to report on the client. She had only inherited the money, but was not in the public eye and did not hold an important position in the company that belonged to the family. In such cases, it is always a question of weighing things up, unlike in traffic law, where running a red light is a clear violation. It is not quite as simple in press law.

What advice do you give clients to protect as much of their privacy and that of their family as possible?

First of all, many clients don't know that there is a right to privacy outside their own four walls. If they go out to dinner, to the movies or to the market, they have a right to do so alone without a photographer taking pictures the whole time. You can almost always take action against this.

You say: almost. When is it not possible?

For example, when clients are out and about in their profession, they are usually allowed to be photographed. There is also a curious ruling on Heide Simonis, the former Minister President. She was photographed the day after her resignation while shopping for shoes. This was actually a private undertaking. However, the court ruled that there was an overriding public interest in what a prime minister did the day after her resignation. I still consider this judgment to be wrong, but media law is always a matter of weighing up the facts. That's another reason why I always advise clients: don't give too many insights. As soon as you open yourself up and give insights, that opens the door.

What can such insights be?

For example, I strongly advise against home stories. Once I open the door to my house, then in a way I'm selling out my private life. Judges don't like that and it gives you a very poor chance of winning in court. It's similar with weddings. If you market your beautiful dream wedding, you also have to accept that the media will illuminate and perhaps even exploit a possible divorce.

Has it become more difficult to protect clients' privacy in the age of social media?

I would say partly because social media is a dangerous area. I recently represented a case in which the girlfriend of a well-known sportsman posted vacation photos. If he doesn't actively defend himself against this, the Bild newspaper, for example, will be allowed to publish pictures from his vacation in the future. This is the decision of some courts. Information about where the celebrity is staying may also become admissible, which nobody can want. It is therefore best not to post such pictures, or not to like them, but to try to distance yourself from them. It is not uncommon for decisions to be very subtle, with nuances being important.

In general, press law is different from many other areas of law. How did you come to this?

That was a coincidence. During my legal clerkship, I spent some time at the Higher Regional Court Senate for Press Law in Hamburg. At the time, they were hearing a case about whether the car rental company Sixt was allowed to advertise with the face of Oskar Lafontaine. I found that extremely exciting and stayed on. I then went to Professor Matthias Prinz and finally set up my own business. I've been self-employed for thirteen years now and it was exactly the right decision for me.

What was your greatest success?

For me, every case is exciting and important, so I couldn't single one out. In my line of work, it's often about quick decisions, for example by means of an interim injunction. I'm delighted with every injunction we can obtain. Because it protects our clients. And that makes me happy.

After your studies, you could have chosen to represent media instead of personalities. Why did things turn out differently?

I never wanted to represent the media, but always people. They are often in an emergency situation, whether prominent or not, because something is written about them in the world that they think is wrong. I always wanted to represent these people.

You also have an office in the USA. What are the benefits?

For me, personal and geographical proximity to my clients is an important prerequisite for a trusting working relationship. For example, it is best to discuss your performances in Germany with an international show star on site and to highlight your legal needs.

Do you represent all people?

I help people to achieve their rights. Exceptions apply if their thoughts and actions violate my or our social values. These can be criminals, for example, but also representatives of extreme political camps.

By the time you obtain an injunction, newspapers or magazines have often already been printed. Is it even worth it?

In any case. This has become even more important in the age of the Internet. Because where a newspaper used to be printed, the news was sent out at best. The Internet forgets nothing and even years later, future business partners may come across reputation-damaging articles via a search engine. This is why an injunction against unlawful reporting is all the more important.

Thank you very much for the interview.

Personal details: Patricia Cronemeyer comes from Munich and has been an independent lawyer since 2009 after working in the European Parliament, at the SGS Group and in Prof. Matthias Prinz's law firm. In April 2022, together with Verena Haisch, she founded the law firm Cronemeyer Haisch, which specializes in media, press and entertainment law.

‍