Improper pressure from the opposing party's lawyer
A lawyer twice wrote to a law firm that his client would inform the media if no discussions were forthcoming. On 7 December 2020 The Hague Disciplinary Tribunal imposed a warning on him. Threatening media coverage in order to bring about a settlement is an impermissible means of pressure, even where the lawyer is passing on his own client's message. Where the announcement stands apart from a demand for performance, the position is different.
The lawyer announces the media and the court's press office
The complaint came from a law firm. One of its lawyers, acting as trustee in bankruptcy, had sold the household contents in a 2014 bankruptcy with the permission of the supervisory judge. A company then came forward claiming to own those goods. In March 2015 the bankruptcy was closed for want of assets, after which the company held the firm liable a number of times in the years that followed.
On 13 May 2019 that company's lawyer wrote that his client "intended" to inform the media about the matter if discussions were not opened within the period set. On 12 July 2019 he wrote that his client would inform "the media and the press office of, among others, the Amsterdam District Court". The tribunal upheld the complaint under Section 46 of the Dutch Advocates Act (Advocatenwet) and, alongside the warning, ordered him to pay €1,250 in costs (ECLI:NL:TADRSGR:2020:193).
Publicity that serves no purpose is a means of pressure
The tribunal took the settled standard as its starting point. A lawyer enjoys wide freedom in advancing his client's interests and is generally not required to weigh the advantage to his client against the detriment to the opposing party. That freedom is subject to two limits: means that are impermissible in themselves, and means that cause disproportionate harm without serving any appreciable advantage to the client.
It was on the second of these that the announcement foundered. The tribunal took into account that, in these circumstances, involving the media "could serve no purpose whatsoever". The matter was no more than a dispute between the firm and the lawyer's client, whereas publicity could well cause needlessly damaging consequences for the firm. That is the heart of it: publicity that can yield nothing but reputational damage is a means of pressure rather than a procedural one.
Equally important is what the tribunal said about where the message came from. Even where the conduct amounts to no more than passing on a communication from the lawyer's own client, it is culpable. It is part of a lawyer's task to ensure that the dispute is conducted by permissible means, and he may not lend himself to assisting his client in the use of impermissible ones. The Disciplinary Appeals Tribunal had confirmed that rule as early as 2012. There, a lawyer had passed on a client's own threat to report the opposing party to the tax authorities.
Announcing the legal measure is permitted, the publicity is not
The outcome does not put robust letters of demand out of reach. Rule of Conduct 6(2) in fact obliges a lawyer to notify the opposing party of an intended legal measure. The exception is a particular interest of the client that clearly stands in the way. Under the Rules of Conduct 1992 that same duty was contained in rule 19. For prejudgment attachment the position is less settled than it looks. The Hague Disciplinary Tribunal held in 2018 that the duty to give notice does not extend to it. The 's-Hertogenbosch chair held in 2021 that attaching without prior notice is inherent in the measure, since the opposing party could otherwise move the assets out of reach. The Arnhem-Leeuwarden Disciplinary Tribunal, however, tested the point in 2024 against the exception in Rule of Conduct 6(2) and asked whether there was sufficient reason to withhold notice. A lawyer who ends up on that last line does better to record the concrete risk to recovery.
The line therefore runs between the legal measure itself and what is announced around it. On a repeat demand a lawyer may in principle state that far-reaching measures will follow, up to and including a bankruptcy petition. That this exerts pressure does not make the means impermissible, the chair of the 's-Hertogenbosch Disciplinary Tribunal held in 2017. He did go on to test whether improper use had been made of the collection measure.
That the test has teeth appears from a case from 2018. There a lawyer demanded that individual employees of an organisation pay €4.7 million in their personal capacity within fourteen days, with collection measures held out. The Disciplinary Appeals Tribunal called that approach indecent and unworthy of a lawyer, and saw in it a breach of the core value of integrity. Announcing the measure is therefore permitted so far as the claim it rests on is sound. The Disciplinary Appeals Tribunal held in 2016 that wording which strikes the opposing party as unpleasant and burdensome may be justified in the situation at hand.
The Amsterdam Disciplinary Tribunal drew a sharp distinction between the two elements in 2020. Announcing a wage attachment was not culpable in disciplinary terms. The statement that, in effecting that attachment, the lawyer "would probably not be able to avoid" giving the opposing party's employer a fuller account of what had happened was a threat. The same pattern recurs in a tribunal decision of 7 April 2026. In a family law matter, threatening in the very first letter to make public the opposing party's "double life" earned a warning, while making a maintenance proposal as such remained permissible. That it was the first letter carried weight. No proceedings had yet been brought in which positions had been exchanged, so there was no occasion for statements as far-reaching as those.
When publicity does stay within the lawyer's freedom
Publicity is not prohibited across the board. In March 2013 the Amsterdam Disciplinary Tribunal allowed a passage to stand. The lawyer had written that his client "also intends to voice his experiences and displeasure on television programmes such as Radar and/or Tros Opgelicht". That statement did not exceed the limits of the lawyer's freedom, even though the opposing party read it as a portent of trouble. Another part of the same letter, premature accusations of tax offences, did draw a reprimand.
The ground the tribunal gave was that the remark was evidently the client's own. Two paragraphs earlier, on the tax accusations, that same decision holds that information coming from the client does not exculpate the lawyer. Passing on threats made by one's own client is culpable as well. The origin of the statement therefore cannot be the distinguishing consideration, and the Disciplinary Appeals Tribunal and the 2020 Hague decision point the same way. Placed side by side, the cases do differ in the letters themselves. In the Amsterdam letter the reference to the media stood on its own: the client would tell his story, without any consequence being attached to a failure to perform. In the Hague letters the publicity hung on discussions failing to materialise within a set period. That suggests the linkage is what makes the difference: publicity attached as a consequence to a demand for performance is a means of pressure.
The converse does not hold. That an announcement is tied to no condition at all does not yet make it permissible. In 2022 The Hague Disciplinary Tribunal told a lawyer that the absence of such a linkage did not alter the outcome. The means itself was disproportionate to the end pursued: she had accused the opposing party's lawyer and his clients of blackmail, and announced a criminal complaint, without weighing that step against less far-reaching action. Alongside the linkage, then, a proportionality test applies to the means.
Where publicity is actually sought, the line runs along the case file. A criminal defence lawyer who had video footage from the file shown on television before the hearing received a warning from the Arnhem Disciplinary Tribunal in September 2013. A lawyer should not supply court documents to the media, because trial by media is to be prevented and the case belongs in the courtroom rather than outside it. That rule admits of one exception: a serious infringement of the client's interests as the evident result of publicity given to the case by others. Publicity may therefore be permissible, but as an answer to what has already become public about the case, and not as a means of moving the opposing party to perform.
What does this mean for letters of demand?
Describe the legal measure and attach no consequence outside the law to a failure to pay. A letter that also holds out reputational consequences shifts the pressure from the courtroom into the public arena, and that is what the disciplinary tribunals condemn.
Watch the conditional construction above all. In the Hague case the publicity hung on discussions failing to materialise within a set period, and that if-then linkage turned the announcement into a means of forcing something. Spelling out the motive only strengthens the case against the lawyer. In a case from 2018 the Disciplinary Appeals Tribunal held it against a lawyer that he stated at the hearing what his criminal complaint had been for. He had used it to get the parties around the table. That complaint was thereby a means of pressure and the core value of integrity had been breached.
What further aggravates an announcement is the question of what it serves. In December 2013 The Hague Disciplinary Tribunal imposed a reprimand on a lawyer who referred to a possible publication in a professional journal. He was seeking to move the opposing party towards a settlement less favourable than what the district court had already ordered against her at first instance. The tribunal also held against him that he identified which parties would take an interest in the judgment, and how publication could benefit his own practice. In doing so he failed to keep a proper distance from his client. Pressure to achieve more than the court awarded is harder to justify than pressure to comply with what it did award.
For anyone receiving such a letter, restraint in levelling the accusation of blackmail is in order. Blackmail (afdreiging) under Section 318 of the Dutch Criminal Code (Sr) is narrowly defined. It requires an intent to obtain an unlawful advantage for oneself or another, and a threat of defamation, defamatory writing or disclosure of a secret. The victim must also have been coerced into handing over property, incurring a debt, cancelling a debt owed to him or making data available. Where a genuine, if disputed, claim is being collected, that intent is not readily made out. Blackmail is, moreover, an offence prosecuted only on complaint. Anyone who levels the accusation regardless runs a risk of his own. The lawyer who in 2022 accused the opposing party's lawyer of blackmail, and announced a criminal complaint, had a complaint upheld against her and received a warning.
Frequently asked questions
May a lawyer announce that his client will go to the press?
Announcing it is permitted, tying it to a demand is not. The Hague Disciplinary Tribunal held in 2020 that threatening media coverage to move the opposing party towards discussions or a settlement is impermissible. The standard has two limbs: a means that is impermissible in itself, and a means that causes disproportionate harm without any appreciable advantage to the client. The tribunal took into account that publicity could serve no purpose in what was a purely bilateral dispute, whereas the opposing party did risk reputational damage. Where the statement stands apart from a demand for performance, it may remain within the lawyer's freedom.
Does it help to argue that the client wanted to go to the press?
Barely. The Disciplinary Appeals Tribunal and The Hague Disciplinary Tribunal hold the lawyer responsible. He must ensure that the dispute is conducted by permissible means, and may not assist his client in using impermissible ones. The Amsterdam Disciplinary Tribunal did reject the complaint on this point in 2013, because the statement was evidently the client's own, but held in that same decision that an origin with the client does not exculpate. The difference lay in the letter itself: there the publicity was not tied to a demand for performance.
May an attachment be announced in a letter of demand?
Yes. Rule of Conduct 6(2) in principle even requires notice of an intended legal measure, and announcing a bankruptcy petition on a repeat demand counts in principle as a permissible means of pressure. On prejudgment attachment the tribunals diverge. The Hague held in 2018 that the duty to give notice does not apply there and 's-Hertogenbosch in 2021 that attaching without notice is inherent in the measure, whereas Arnhem-Leeuwarden in 2024 asked whether there was sufficient reason to withhold notice. That no duty to give notice exists does not make giving it impermissible. For enforcement measures, notice remains the rule and departure is permitted only in exceptional cases.
Cited case law
Disciplinary Appeals Tribunal
- ECLI:NL:TAHVD:2012:YA4475 (10 December 2012) — passing on a client's own threat to lodge a criminal complaint is not permissible; warning.
- ECLI:NL:TAHVD:2016:184 (17 October 2016) — pointing to claims and possible legal measures does not amount to improper pressure, even where the wording comes across as unpleasant.
- ECLI:NL:TAHVD:2018:20 (5 February 2018) — the duty to give notice must in principle be observed, but departure is possible in exceptional cases, among them where notice would cause the prospects of recovery to disappear and it is evident that the opposing party will not comply voluntarily.
- ECLI:NL:TAHVD:2018:151 (20 August 2018) — lodging a criminal complaint to get the parties around the table amounts to using it as a means of pressure and breaches the core value of integrity; three-month suspension, imposed for a series of complaints taken together.
Disciplinary Tribunals
- ECLI:NL:TADRAMS:2013:YA4035 (12 March 2013) — the statement that the client would tell his story in the media stayed within the lawyer's freedom; premature accusations of tax offences drew a reprimand.
- ECLI:NL:TADRARN:2013:85 (30 September 2013) — a lawyer should not supply court documents to the media; the exception applies only where the client's interests are seriously infringed by publicity given to the case by others; warning.
- ECLI:NL:TADRSGR:2013:132 (16 December 2013) — moving the opposing party, under the pressure of a possible publication in a professional journal, towards a proposal less favourable than what the district court had ordered against her, while failing to keep a proper distance from one's own client, is impermissible; reprimand.
- ECLI:NL:TADRSHE:2017:26 (6 February 2017, chair's decision) — on a repeat demand it may be stated that far-reaching legal measures will follow, including a bankruptcy petition.
- ECLI:NL:TADRSGR:2018:162 (16 July 2018) — the duty to give notice does not extend to prejudgment attachment, because prejudgment measures exist precisely to prevent assets from being disposed of or encumbered.
- ECLI:NL:TADRAMS:2020:62 (23 March 2020) — announcing a wage attachment is not culpable; announcing that the employer will be informed in the process is a threat.
- ECLI:NL:TADRSGR:2020:193 (7 December 2020) — threatening media coverage as a means of pressure to bring about discussions or a settlement is not permissible; warning.
- ECLI:NL:TADRSHE:2021:56 (15 March 2021, chair's decision) — laying a prejudgment attachment without prior notice is inherent in the measure, since the opposing party could otherwise move the assets out of reach; complaint manifestly unfounded.
- ECLI:NL:TADRSGR:2022:132 (1 August 2022) — accusing the opposing party's lawyer of blackmail and announcing a criminal complaint calls for a proportionality assessment against less far-reaching action; that the announcement was tied to no condition does not alter the outcome; warning.
- ECLI:NL:TADRARL:2024:111 (29 April 2024) — prejudgment attachment without prior notice tested against the exception in Rule of Conduct 6(2): there was sufficient reason, because the asset available for recovery was to be transferred shortly and voluntary payment was not likely; complaint unfounded.
- ECLI:NL:TADRSGR:2026:74 (7 April 2026) — threatening in the very first letter to make public the opposing party's "double life" is escalating conduct, while the maintenance proposal itself remained permissible; warning.