The lawyer who went too far for the clients
The lawyer who went too far for the clients
Who : Henriëtte Nakad
Issue : improper practice
Where : Council of Discipline Amsterdam
Folkert Jensma
April 18, 2021
Reading time 2 minutes
The Session
"And that means that she can no longer play the role of a traditional lawyer." The dean of the Amsterdam Bar is on the defensive. His opponent filled almost all the speaking time at both sessions, calm and collected. She defended her “empathetic” and committed approach as a lawyer, she described her (satisfied) clients as scared and impotent. She rejects the “professional distance” that the blanket likes to see.
She has become too much of a campaigner for the Dean and has remained too little lawyer. Her clients cannot judge her legal qualities. The dean is convinced that they are so thin that she has to close her practice. He saw her on YouTube, received “signals” from “the field”, saw that she is taunting judges just for giving the floor to her opposing party. The blanket had unsuccessful conversations with her. Incidentally, the lawyer also retaliated against the Council of Discipline, as biased, but in vain.
This disciplinary process makes her suspect that she is being opposed. What is happening here must have been whispered from above, she says. She suspects Prime Minister Rutte as an instigator. She is now seeking protection from Commission President Ursula Von der Leyen in Brussels, where she will soon be received, she says. She paints a picture of youth care in which she doesn't win a single case, her clients feel intimidated and where a lot is happening that “cannot be a coincidence”. Also with herself. Recently, a 'near accident' of her daughter. Last year, she turned to the Dean for help and advice. She categorizes all measures taken by youth care as kidnapping or hostage-taking.
On YouTube she expresses suspicions about corruption and pedophile top officials in the justice and youth care sector. She would not achieve concrete results, which means that there is no 'proper practice', says the Dean. She sees conspiracies, has tunnel vision and can no longer keep her distance, he believes. In court, she only vented the anger and frustration of her clients.
The lawyer now believes that the blanket complaint is also related to criminal youth care. The government is the aggressor. Anyone who does not act against it 'is neglecting his duty to report' and is co-guilty. Also the case law. She sees home placements as a gold mine, for everyone who takes part in this 'child trafficking'.
On both court days, several dozen supporters stand with signs in front of the court. At her request, the hearing is public and can also be followed via live stream. The Dean relies on 'signals' from practice, for which he does not want to name a source. He demands a custom ban for her to one day pursue juvenile affairs. She remains free to do so outside the courtroom.
This disciplinary process gives her the suspicion that she is being thwarted
In the meantime, the lawyer believes it is possible that the Amsterdam Bar itself has organized the signals “that I am not allowed to know”, for which she now has to justify herself. While the blanket should justify itself. Namely for ignoring her complaints about the 'wave of cases' about youth care under which she has been buried. About the way in which Youth Care brought one of its clients to suicide, about the enormous unrest about Youth Care. The disciplinary procedure itself is already an infringement of her integrity as a lawyer. And with that also of the victims for whom she works. After which she mentions the Inquisition and the "witch hunts of the Middle Ages."
Three weeks later, the Council of Discipline grants the claim. The lawyer must resign her practice in juvenile matters within a week. The Board is of the opinion that it does not meet professional standards. She keeps too little distance, uses hopeless legal remedies, offers false hope, and does not open her mind.
Trial participants: Disciplinary judges: mr. PM Wamsteker, chairman, mrs. S. van Andel, G. Kaaij, HCJM Karskens, C. Wiggers Parties: Evert Jan Henrichs v. mr. Henriëtte N. Nakad
She creates stalemates and has such a deep distrust that a good conversation is often not possible. She is also not a recognized juvenile law specialist, does not participate in intervision, is self-taught. She also suffers from tunnel vision, is insufficiently independent and operates on the basis of established judgments about youth care and justice.
.