Dutch lawyers report sharp rise in threats and intimidation from clients
Lawyers in the Netherlands are increasingly targeted by threats and intimidation from their own clients, with the number of help requests to local deans of the Dutch Bar Association nearly doubling in a year, De Telegraaf reports.
In 2023, attorneys reported 116 incidents of unsafe situations, compared to 204 last year. National dean Jeroen Soeteman called it “a considerable hardening in the treatment of lawyers.” The profession is now weighing additional safeguards to protect attorneys in criminal defense practice.
“The measure is to protect lawyers against the great pressure some clients exert,” said Frédérique ten Berge, dean of Midden-Nederland, in an interview with De Telegraaf. “We see that colleagues sometimes struggle enormously to resist that pressure. With an extra lawyer in the room, the chance is much smaller that a client will incite their counsel to behavior unbefitting the office.”
The Eerste Kamer this week approved a significant legal change permitting visual monitoring of lawyer visits in high-security prisons such as the Extra Beveiligde Inrichting (Extra-Security Institution, EBI). No more than two attorneys per client will be allowed to enter those facilities.
The Dutch Bar Association has long observed that especially younger criminal defense lawyers find it difficult to deal with potential clients regarded by prosecutors as serious offenders. “That is why we organize training in resilience and awareness,” Soeteman told De Telegraaf. “In cases of real threats or intimidation, safety measures are arranged in consultation with the authorities.”
Some lawyers have received personal protection or had their offices secured. Attorneys representing clients in severe criminal cases are now routinely invited to meet with local deans. “We inform them about applying the four-eyes principle—even during introductory meetings—and if necessary, we issue urgent advice,” Ten Berge told De Telegraaf. “We go over the risks of influence or undue pressure. These are not optional conversations.”
Last month, the Bar sent a delegation to Palermo, Sicily, to learn how Italian colleagues handle threats from clients or their networks. Ten Berge said the most important lesson was that “good and transparent consultation with the Public Prosecution Service, prison authorities and judges is needed to identify unsafe situations in time.”
Ten Berge criticized the authorities for failing to notify the Amsterdam dean earlier when lawyer Vito Shukrula was suspected of participating in the criminal organization of Ridouan Taghi. The dean was informed only an hour before Shukrula’s arrest. “If the dean had been informed much earlier that there may have been improper contacts, she might have been able to intervene in time,” Ten Berge told De Telegraaf.
Soeteman and Ten Berge also voiced concern about lawyers’ use of encrypted PGP phones to communicate with clients. “As a rule, we find it highly undesirable that our profession conducts confidential conversations via PGP phones,” they said. Soeteman added that while it is sometimes unavoidable when clients are abroad and local authorities intercept lawyer calls, “In general, using PGP phones can cause serious problems for lawyers and their clients.”
Since recent years, regular consultations have taken place between the Bar Association, the Public Prosecution Service and the Custodial Institutions Agency to share information about possible misconduct in lawyer-client contacts. In 2024, the agency reported 17 suspicious cases to the Bar, and in the first months of this year, eight more. According to Ten Berge, in every instance, the dean investigated and took action if necessary.
