Who will kick the legal profession’s conscience when the tanks roll in?

What do I do with a column called ‘rule of law’ if a bloody war suddenly starts around the corner? And then also one with exactly such ruined residential blocks that History Channel with old WWII newsreels endlessly? Exactly what the 27 European constitutional states derive their ‘never again war’ article of faith from. The peace dividend I inherited for free washes away right here before my eyes. Wouldn’t aggression be banned from now on? All historical, political or, if necessary, religiously inspired hatred towards any neighboring country would henceforth be resolved through protocols and UN treaties. Civilization had won, not lost, in the form of international rule of law. no weeder, never again. And the dishes were in The Hague after Nuremberg and Tokyo. That is, no, that was my world.

I can cry. And so do I, realizing that Russia is now ending 75 years of peace. And my children will soon be able to do military service. While I never had to.

In law we can pick up the shards. Russia came up with some rehearsed accusations about ‘genocide’ and aggression – lip service. International lawyers made short work of it. Ukraine demanded an urgent ban on the Russian invasion at the International Court of Justice. Using Cluster Ammunition in residential areas, threats of nuclear weapons, are direct violations of international law. Apart from the invasion itself. Well, Putin isn’t working on it. It leans on the Russian Orthodox Church, wraps itself in the history of the Great Russian Empire and has gagged all media.

Initially, I mainly wanted to talk about the Dutch legal service providers who hastily divested their Russian clients. Until last week, under the rule of law, the Netherlands could become unseen rich in countries that are no good – first comes das Fressen, not true. But then the Amsterdam dean of lawyers called unexpectedly by letter the industry to ‘increased vigilance’ in the face of expected attempts to circumvent sanctions. Here someone knew his Pappenheimers. Do you have something to fold, cover, redirect or otherwise keep out of sight, in the Netherlands there are lawyers, accountants and trust offices ready for billions of customers.

But in the past two weeks broke that Moral unexpectedly, as hard as the first Russian cruise missile. In Amsterdam, law firm Houthoff promised to “review” its relations with client Russia. After which it had to determine that it was already too late for that. Close that trade. Settle it neatly – foreign interests also have rights, for example to legal representation. But maybe some ‘picket lawyer’ can fix that from now on? At the Zuidas, the fridge with vodka will still be closed.

The blanket came in the Journal quickly with the shame that criminal lawyers sometimes had clients against whom they had to put aside moral objections. But that is not convincing. The Russian Federation is not being prosecuted here, but has something to dispute or demand from another party that happens to be or is not based here. As a lawyer you don’t have to say yes to that. And if you do, then it’s your invasion after that. At least I think so.

But the soup is not eaten that hot in the legal elite here. In a sharp column Diana de Wolff, professor of the legal profession, notes that the Houthoff lawyer, who achieved a major legal victory for Russia, recently served as a counselor was appointed to the Supreme Court. Is that a sublime example of the institutionally correct blindness of Lady Justice? Or from total naivety and a lack of moral compass on the part of literally everyone involved?

I would prefer to see an official investigation into whether all these business service providers have complied with the sanction rules since 2014. After all, the industry’s attitude is that everything that is not too explicitly prohibited must be able to be regulated. So open up – not your client’s, but your own. What do you actually consider fair and morally acceptable, as a lawyer? And can you then sit down in the Supreme Court with a neutral view?