Press release and decision by the RvD The Hague, September 9, 2024
Press release and decision by the RvD The Hague, September 9, 2024
- Press release and decision by the RvD The Hague, September 9, 2024
Press release and decision by the RvD The Hague, September 9, 2024
Press release and decision of the Board of Discipline The HaguePress release September 9, 2024 Decision by the Rvd of The HagueToday, September 9, 2024, the Council of Discipline The Hague will rule in a number of complaint cases that were heard at a hearing on 17 June 2024. The complaint cases are directed against the state attorney, two office mates and the Pels Rijcken office where the national lawyer works.Background of the complaintsThe origin of these complaints lies in a criminal investigation into a company in which e-mails were seized that were subject to the right to dispense from this company's lawyer (mr. Doorenbos). The Public Prosecutor's Office (the Public Prosecutor's Office) has acknowledged that Mr. Doorenbos's right to dispense has been violated and has dismissed the criminal cases. However, various civil and disciplinary proceedings took place between Mr. Doorenbos, one of the complainants, and the Public Prosecutor's Office/State. In February 2016, one of the state attorney's office issued confidential advice to the Public Prosecutor about the feasibility of a disciplinary complaint against Mr. Doorenbos. Later, the state attorney also filed that disciplinary complaint. The state attorney and his office mate also had e-mails that were seized during that criminal investigation.Complaints about the State Attorney's Office are inadmissibleThe council is not able to deal with the complaints about Pels Rijcken in terms of content. According to settled (disciplinary) case law, complaints about an office must involve conduct that can be blamed on all members of a scale or all directors of a legal person. The complaints against Pels Rijcken are only about the conduct of the national lawyer and the two office mates. The state attorney's complaints about Pels Rijcken are therefore inadmissible.Complaints about the state attorney and his colleagues are largely inadmissible or unfoundedThe council is unable to substantively deal with the complaint about the filing of the disciplinary complaint against mr. Doorenbos by the national attorney, because that complaint was filed too late. In principle, a complainant has three years to file a complaint about a lawyer and that period has been exceeded. The council also declares the complaint about the issuing of the advice in 2016 by one of the national lawyer's office mates unfounded. The Public Prosecution Service confidentially asked this lawyer for advice about a possible disciplinary complaint and the lawyer was allowed to advise on this. In doing so, he took note and made use of e-mails that are now established to be subject to the right to dispense. This involves looking at how the situation was at that time. During the period that this issue occurred, the lawyer could assume that the emails were obtained lawfully. At the time, it was not evident that these were legitimate e-mails and familiarization with those emails was necessary to be able to advise the Public Prosecutor (confidentially). Given these concrete circumstances of the case, the national lawyer's office mate did not act criminally culpable by viewing and using the e-mails. The council also declares the complaints about making incorrect statements in civil proceedings unfounded. In principle, a lawyer may rely on the information he receives from a client. In this case, it also appeared that the lawyers asked critical questions to the client (the Public Prosecutor).Grounded complaint and measureThe council does declare the complaint about the preservation of the e-mails by the national attorney well-founded. Even after an irrevocable ruling found that Mr. Doorenbos's right to dispense had been violated, the state attorney kept the e-mails in question. Continuing to store e-mails that have now been determined to fall under the right to dispense affects the core value of confidentiality and is criminally culpable. The council issues a warning to the state attorney.AppealThe parties have 30 days to appeal the Board's decision to the Court of Discipline. For the council's full considerations, see the decision published with this press statement.Rvd The Hague decision September 9, 2024
.avif)