The ‘Kasem issue’ has been settled with a ‘normative conversation’ with the Amsterdam dean. The investigation concluded that he had expressed himself ‘inappropriately’ towards a detained client. But there is unfortunately more inappropriate here, namely this conclusion of the dean.
The investigation focused on the suspicion that Kasem bribed an official to get a client released early. There was, fortunately, no evidence of this in the investigation. It did show something else, namely that Kasem had conned/frauded/lied to his client. It is quite something.
There is little more frustrating than an outstanding bill that is not paid: you have done your job, put in the time, but payment fails to materialise. We've all experienced it. Anyway, we are people of law. And through the law is therefore the only route to obtain payment if client continues not to give in.
New debt collection variant
Kasem introduced a new variant. Lie to your client that you can perform an impossible feat for him and that the costs for doing so must be paid in advance, and happen to be roughly equal to the outstanding bill. And then payment...... and done!
It couldn't, it can't, it shouldn't and it shouldn't. And Kasem will understand that by now. And of course, we all make mistakes sometimes and we should (be allowed to) learn from them. And so Kasem also deserves a second chance.
But the signal sent out by the dean with the lightest possible sanction in the form of the normative conversation is weak, too weak. It almost seems as if ripping off your own client is not really a faux pas.
A reprimand or a short suspension of a few weeks would not have prevented Kasem from functioning as a lawyer (had he still wanted to), but would have been a more appropriate signal, in my view, for the serious nature of this offence. Why the dean did not follow this up is beyond me. The facts are clear, there is even a confession.
Oversight of our profession
With this behaviour, which is too light (and sensible), the dean is selling herself and our profession short. This only increases the call for independent and external supervision of the legal profession. And that is understandable too.
So fine for Kasem that the ‘punishment’ is light, but damaging for the legal profession.
