Opinion: Amsterdam dean takes the actions of former lawyer Kasem too lightly

From research by Amsterdam dean Barbara Rumora-Scheltema into the actions of presenter and former lawyer Khalid Kasem – as explained in publications by the Algemeen Dagblad – it follows that there is no evidence of (attempted) bribery of a public official, with the aim of getting a client released earlier.

Based on the reporting and my own experience as a former lawyer, I can follow this well. Considering all the facts and circumstances – in particular the course of events in the Netherlands surrounding earlier release and the enormous risks for Kasem himself if he had actually tried to bribe a civil servant – the scenario of (attempted) bribery was clear from the outset. to extremely unlikely.

What I understand less well is that the dean, the supervisor from the bar association, only sees the offer of bribery to a client – with the apparent aim of paying an outstanding invoice – as ‘inappropriate statements in relation to a client’ and dismisses it with a warning.

Fabrication

I think there is more than just an ‘inappropriate statement’; there are strong indications that a criminal offense has been committed, namely attempted fraud. As far as I can see, Kasem tried to use a fabrication (a false bribe offer that he never intended to fulfill) to unlawfully extort money from his client for his own benefit. The fact that this is a case in which someone does not pay his invoice is in no way a justification for these types of ‘tricks’; Legal options are available for the collection of invoices.

In several respects, the attempt at fraud can be regarded as a less serious criminal offense than a possible attempt at bribery. But there is also reason not to downplay this attempted fraud, compared to other situations.

Entrusted

First of all, this concerns an attempt to defraud one’s own client, someone who has been entrusted to the care of the lawyer. In that relationship, the client must be able to fully rely on the correct and lawful treatment by his lawyer.

Another particularly culpable aspect of this situation is that Kasem clearly abuses the vulnerable position of his client. For someone who is incarcerated, freedom is the highest good and by responding to that strong desire, the situation in which the victim finds himself is particularly abused.

Rule of law

The third and final point concerns the role of a lawyer as (co-)guardian of the rule of law and his task to protect his client as much as possible from committing future criminal offenses. With his attempted fraud, Kasem essentially invites the client to commit a serious criminal offense with him, or at least to be an accomplice. The requested amount of money, viewed from the victim’s perspective, is directly used to bribe a public official. Even if it is made up, a lawyer who proposes to a client to commit a serious criminal offense with him is acting extremely reprehensible.

In light of these special circumstances, I think this is a serious matter. It is surprising that the dean dismisses it in this way, with the emphasis on what will result in ‘acquittal’ in this case, and not on the serious accusation that remains. This is not good for the reputation of the legal profession and reinforces the call for independent supervision of the legal profession.