Part of the AI Regulation News hub.
Germany has made evaluating the opportunities and risks of artificial intelligence an examined competence in a federally recognised qualification for law firm IT and marketing staff
Three clauses in an eight page vocational ordinance. What makes them worth reading is what the drafters did not put in the two sibling ordinances published the same day.
Bottom line: Binding. The ordinance was promulgated on 2 September 2026 and took effect the following day. It governs what one federally recognised examination must test, not what any firm must do.
Who this affects: Rechtsanwaltsfachangestellte and law firm IT and marketing staff sitting this credential, and the Rechtsanwaltskammern and other competent bodies that set and administer the examination.
Issue date: Signed 24 August 2026 by Federal Minister Karin Prien. Promulgated 2 September 2026, in force 3 September 2026 under section 15.
What changed: Evaluating the opportunities and risks of using artificial intelligence became one of seven activities a candidate must perform independently and responsibly.
Analysis: The ordinance lists KI beside professional conduct, IT and data protection law as a distinct framework a candidate has to work within. That is a drafting choice, not a description of technology.
Primary sources: BGBl. 2026 I Nr. 246, full text
- Instrument (EN)
- Ordinance on the examination for the recognised advanced qualification Certified Specialist for Information Technology and Marketing in the Legal Sector
- Authority
- Federal Ministry for Education, Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth, in agreement with the Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection
- Jurisdiction
- Germany, federal
- Status
- Promulgated in the Bundesgesetzblatt Teil I Nr. 246 on 2 September 2026
- Bindingness
- Binding as a federal ordinance. It sets examination content for a voluntary qualification and imposes no duty on firms or on AI deployers
- Issue date / next deadline
- Signed 24 August 2026. In force 3 September 2026. No transitional deadline
- Legal basis
- Berufsbildungsgesetz, following a hearing of the BIBB Hauptausschuss
- Primary source
- https://recht.bund.de/bgbl/1/2026/246/regelungstext.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=1
What does the ordinance actually say about AI?
Section 1 sets out what the qualification is for, and lists seven activities the successful candidate must be able to carry out "eigenständig und verantwortlich", independently and responsibly. The fourth is "Bewerten von Chancen und Risiken beim Einsatz von Künstlicher Intelligenz", evaluating the opportunities and risks of using artificial intelligence.
Section 5 governs the examination area for information technology and data protection. A candidate must show they can develop, steer and monitor firm processes "unter Beachtung der berufsrechtlichen, der IT-, der KI- und der datenschutzrechtlichen Rahmenbedingungen".
Section 6, on marketing and media, requires developing and managing firm marketing "unter Verwendung von Software- und KI-gestützten Marketinginstrumenten".
That is the whole of it. Across eight pages the ordinance uses the word Künstlicher once and the abbreviation KI twice. Describing this as a German AI statute would overstate its subject and scope.
Why the sibling ordinances matter more than the clauses
Two other ordinances in the same family were promulgated on the same day: Nr. 244, on the Bachelor Professional im Rechtswesen, and Nr. 245, on insolvency law. Neither contains any KI provision.
That is what turns three clauses into a story. All three ordinances were signed and promulgated on the same dates; Nr. 246 includes AI competence, while Nr. 244 and Nr. 245 do not.
It is also the reason to resist the obvious framing. This is not a signal that Germany is regulating AI in law firms. What it does show is where the ordinance places the competence: in the examination for the technology and marketing specialist, and not in the two sibling qualifications published beside it. That reading is ours, not a statement of ministerial intent.
What it does not do
It creates no duty on a law firm, no duty on a provider or deployer of an AI system, and no liability. It is examination content for a qualification a person chooses to sit.
Section 5 is the clause most likely to be over-read. Listing KI beside professional conduct, IT and data protection law tells you the candidate must work within whatever those frameworks require. It does not itself say what any of them require.
Germany's actual AI Act implementation runs on a separate track, through market surveillance and notifying authority designation. This ordinance is not part of it.
Who should care, and why it is narrower than it looks
The population is candidates for one credential and the chambers that examine them. If you run a German law firm, nothing here obliges you to retrain anyone.
The reason to note it is directional. A federal ordinance now treats AI risk assessment as a nameable, examinable competence in the legal sector, which is a different posture from treating AI as a tool that staff happen to use. That is our characterisation of the drafting, not something the ordinance says about itself.
For firms outside Germany the transferable question is simpler. If a regulator were to ask who in your firm is responsible for assessing the opportunities and risks of the AI tools you have deployed, would the answer be a named role or nobody in particular.
What we did not verify
What we opened: the full eight page ordinance as published, fetched from the Bundesgesetzblatt and read as extracted text, including sections 1, 5, 6 and the commencement clause at section 15.
What we did not open: the underlying Berufsbildungsgesetz provisions, the BIBB Hauptausschuss recommendation, and the examination syllabus that the competent bodies will build from this ordinance. We read the two sibling ordinances only far enough to establish that neither mentions KI.
What we refuse to claim: we do not say this is a first, in Germany or anywhere, because the document does not say so and we did not test it. We do not say German law firms or attorneys must now be trained on AI, because the ordinance binds an examination rather than a workforce. The ordinance itself sets the learning volume: it states that as a rule a total of at least 400 hours of learning is required, with the content determined by the qualification contents.
Informational analysis for working professionals, not legal advice. Confirm how any rule applies to your situation with qualified counsel.
The useful question this ordinance raises is not about Germany. It is whether the assessment of AI opportunity and risk in your own organisation sits with a named, accountable role or is assumed to be everyone's job. Germany has answered it for one credential by putting it in the technology and marketing specialist's examination rather than either of the two sibling qualifications promulgated alongside it.
Source File
https://recht.bund.de/bgbl/1/2026/246/regelungstext.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=1
Open the published text and confirm three things: the seven-item list in section 1 and its fourth entry on Künstliche Intelligenz, the phrase der KI- und der datenschutzrechtlichen Rahmenbedingungen in section 5, and the commencement wording in section 15.
Bewerten von Chancen und Risiken beim Einsatz von Künstlicher Intelligenz. Evaluating the opportunities and risks of using artificial intelligence. · BGBl. 2026 I Nr. 246, section 1, promulgated 2 September 2026
FAQ
Does this require German lawyers to be trained on AI?
No. It sets the examination content for one federally recognised qualification taken by law firm IT and marketing staff. It imposes no training duty on attorneys, on firms or on anyone who does not sit this examination.
Is this part of Germany's AI Act implementation?
No. It is a vocational training ordinance made under the Berufsbildungsgesetz. Germany's AI Act implementation runs separately, through market surveillance and notifying authority arrangements.
How much of the ordinance is actually about AI?
Three clauses. Across eight pages the text uses the word Künstlicher once and the abbreviation KI twice, in sections 1, 5 and 6.
Why does the comparison with the other ordinances matter?
Two sibling ordinances in the same legal sector family were promulgated the same day and contain no KI provision, showing that the clause was specific to Nr. 246 rather than standard wording carried across all three ordinances.
Related briefings
Sponsored Training
Practical AI training for regulated professionals, built around verification, documentation and a defensible process. See the courses.