Lawyer Marcel Senders wins disciplinary complaint

By decision of the Court in Amsterdam dated November 15^th 2011, notary Mr. A. C. W. Count of Limburg Stirum was reprimanded following a disciplinary complaint lodged by lawyer Marcel Senders on behalf of a client on November 18^th 2009. The item in the notice of complaint by lawyer Marcel Senders was in the first instance already declared legitimate on January 18^th 2011. Notary van Limburg Stirum filed an appeal through his lawyer but was unsuccessful, which subsequently led to another reprimand, this time by the Appeal Court in Amsterdam.

The complaint

Senders’ client was of the opinion that the notary defaulted in the fulfillment of his notarial obligations. The notary’s negligence was revealed during the bankruptcy of Koopstudio Nederland B.V. (Ltd.), for which notary Count of Limburg Stirum had drawn up acts. The notary had neglected to inform lawyer Marcel Senders’ client about Koopstudio’s poor financial situation and the risks that signing the act prepared by him entailed. The notary advised that an umbrella mortgage provided by him would merely involve a theoretical risk for Mr. Senders’ client with regard to Koopstudio’s sponsor, the Rabobank bank in Venlo. It subsequently became clear that this was not the case.

Appeal

Notary Count of Limburg Stirum filed an appeal on February 1^st 2011 against the earlier decision by the Kamer van Toezicht over Notarissen en Kandidaat-Notarissen (Dutch supervisory body for notaries and candidate notaries) in order to attempt to nullify the imposed reprimand. Notary Count of Limburg Stirum in the meanwhile sought  to revise and improve errors in his act (via a statement, dated May 3^rd 2011) in order to attempt to persuade the Court to nullify the reprimand imposed on him.

Mr. M.Ph.A. Senders on his turn referenced Article 45 part 2 of the Wna (Dutch ‘Public Notaries Act’) which states that notaries apparently can revise and improve inconsistencies and text errors retroactively without thereby altering the legal content of the act. But Mr. Marcel Senders legitimately referenced Article 45 part 2 of the Wna, since the Court would consider and accept this when making its decision; notary Count of Limburg Stirum’s revised act would subsequently be judged to have no worth whatsoever on account of the major modifications which did, in fact, alter its legal content. The invalidity of the revised act ultimately resulted in the dismissal of notary Count of Limburg Stirum’s appeal against the previously imposed reprimand.

Decision of the Appeal Court:

• Impose a reprimand on notary Count of Limburg Stirum!