Welcome to Plus Ultra’s Practical Tips For Legal Translations.

On this page you’ll find practical tips for matters that combine law and language. We wrote this page for those that don’t speak the Dutch legal language and that may face issues during Dutch formalities and procedures.

Plus Ultra Legal and Language Tips highlights the importance to understanding legal language. Even in the English language the legal language is a language on its own that’s hard to understand even for those whose mother tongue is English. Legal English is a language on its own, apart from conversational English language. That’s why issues and misunderstandings arise faster when you don’t understand the Dutch language properly, which is exacerbated when you’re dealing with legal matters. So if it’s important to understand legal Dutch during proceedings, formalities etcetera, when you don’t or hardly understand Dutch, a good translation becomes indispensable.

In our discussion we try to determine when and why a good translation is indispensable. The aim is to determine exactly when language issues may arise so that we can preempt them. By preempting them, the information we provide is useful to both those that don’t speak the language and those that do (e.g. non-Dutch client and Dutch notary).

The links in our articles direct you to the legal and language sources we use, but please note that they’re in Dutch. Feel free to ask us for further sources and references for verification and information purposes.

If you have had issues or doubts about legal or language matters during proceedings or transactions (public instruments, power of attorneys, real estate, etc.), ask us and perhaps we can dedicate an article to its legal and language aspects.

Thank you very much for visiting us. Please feel free to contact us with questions or suggestions.

The Netherlands has a major problem with low-quality translations. We’ll show you how important this is and how this can affect you. We’re not talking about the quality of translations of conversations and small talk, although even dating apps and conversational translations often produce mistranslations too. Rather, we’re talking about formal situations involving government entities, formalities and proceedings.

Imagine going to a notary’s office in the Netherlands to formalize some documents you need for your English-speaking country. Just try to read the following notary stamp and ask yourself whether the officials in your country would understand it:

“Issued for authentically copy, by mr. [. . .], substitute of mr. [. . .], notary-public at [. . .], the Netherlands, of this to me displayed, with this copy compared document, on this day, 10th day of [. . .].”

Yes, the words are English alright, but the meaning is hard to grasp, confusing or outright incomprehensible. It’s like a puzzle where you have to figure out what the meaning is of each word and how it connects to the next, or whether it does so at all. Even Netherlands websites targeting English speakers can be hard to understand. Although the conversational part in English might be alright, often the technical terminology used in the more important parts is confusing or simply unintelligible.

The many Dutch translation-industry protests show that the Dutch government is notorious for obtaining low-quality translations as cheap as possible. Unintelligible translations used by the Dutch government are rampant. Let’s have a look some examples from information issued by the Netherlands Justice Department and judiciary that are at best confusing and at worst incomprehensible. We picked these texts because they aptly show the confusion people experience when reading Dutch brochures about their rights during arrest and trial.

We know many English speakers have problems understanding what happens upon arrest and at trial in the Netherlands and these types of brochures don’t really inform but instead add to the confusion. We know of family members having much trouble trying to find clear information about what exactly is the procedure and what happens when someone is arrested or tried in the Netherlands. Why is it important? Well, if for instance your child is arrested in the Netherlands, you need to understand exactly what’s going on to be able to help effectively. Confusion doesn’t help.

The translation and comprehension problems are magnified exponentially when you or your relatives are the target. If you don’t even understand the charges against you, how can you properly defend yourself? If they bring charges against you in a language or in confusing English words that you don’t even understand, how can you properly defend yourself? How can that be due process? And yet, this is exactly the problem with the Netherlands government.

We’ll first look at the Netherlands Justice Department’s information they give to people that have a run-in with the law in the Netherlands and then see how other English speakers interpret it.

The first brochure has the title “If you are suspected of a criminal offence” which already sounds incomplete, because after the “if” most of us will want to finish that sentence with “then . . .” The brochure states (p. 4): “You can be held in police custody [. . .] if ordered by a duly authorized senior police officer or the assistant prosecutor”. American readers are familiar with federal assistant prosecutors, so there seems to be no problem understanding this sentence, or is there? Is this Dutch “assistant prosecutor” the prosecutor we think he is? Page 3 states that this “assistant prosecutor” is “usually a senior police officer”. So that begs the question what exactly this “assistant prosecutor” is and whether he’s a prosecutor, in the English sense, at all.

Let’s continue. The brochure then mentions (p. 6) “Appearance before the Officer of Justice” upon arrest. Who’s this “Officer of Justice”? Is that the judge? Some other court official? “He will have received the dossier on your case from the police [. . .] and details of any (forensic) evidence which exists” (p. 6). What’s that “dossier”? How about “which exists”? Yes, these are English words but the phrasing of the sentence is semantically opaque. It’s just hard to follow. Anyway, this person seems to have incarceration powers: “The Officer of Justice decides that you must be detained even longer in the interests of the police investigation” (p. 5). Again, who exactly is that “Officer of Justice”?

Lastly, page 10 states:

“Once the judge has returned his verdict, if you have been found guilty and sentenced to a term of imprisonment, you will be transferred from the detention centre to a prison.”

Apart from the way the sentence is phrased, does the Netherlands system have jury trials? Or is this text referring to bench trials.

The other brochure issued by the Netherlands Justice Department and judiciary Netherlands, titled, “On trial,” is equally confusing to the point it makes no sense.

Page 8 defines “Cross-examination” as “The judge may now ask you a number of questions. You are under no obligation to answer. Unlike the witnesses, you are also under no obligation to take the oath or affirm.” Again, the same page mentions “verdict and sentencing” which leads you to think they have jury trials. However, you have no jury rights in the Netherlands. What’s more, a jury trial is condescendingly called “administration of justice by laymen”, the idea being that they administration of justice by a judge without any involvement of others is the best. We know, of course, that many jurisdictions think otherwise, because of its propensity to judicial authoritarianism, blinkered justice wanting only one result, and miscarriages of justice because there’s no one to provide any other perspective of the matter.

You see how reading just these few sentences can be confusing. With the “Officer of Justice” in mind, now let’s see how English-speaking readers construe these translations issued by the Netherlands judiciary. One of the readers is the U.K. government’s Foreign & Commonwealth Office issuing guidance for British nationals overseas, titled, “Information pack for British nationals detained or imprisoned in the Netherlands”

Explaining “Police custody and initial arrival at prison” it states:

“The Police may wish to investigate further and therefore can lodge a request with the assistant prosecutor to extend the custody period. You shall be interviewed by the prosecutor (who is normally a senior police officer) and if the warrant is granted you can be held without charge for a further 72 hours. [. . .] Within three days and fifteen hours from the time of your arrest, you must be brought before an examining judge (officer of justice) who shall determine whether you will be placed in remand or released” (emphasis added).

Again, who’s this “Officer of Justice”? Who exactly is the prosecutor and the assistant prosecutor? Are they one and the same? And who exactly is the senior police officer? Or is he the same as the prosecutor?

Remember, this is how information from the Netherlands government is construed by another English-speaking government trying to offer guidance to its citizens about what happens in the Netherlands upon arrest. Note that this is an English-speaking entity that doesn’t speak Dutch, so, for lack of Dutch background and language knowledge, it can’t assume the meaning of the Netherlands government’s translation much be this or that or the other, because it simply doesn’t speak Dutch, so it has to work exclusively with the English text it’s given. Now you understand why we’ve heard so many complaints that the information about what happens in the Netherlands upon arrest is incomprehensible. No, really, what really happens and who are the key actors?

Well, by procuring low-quality translations as cheap as possible, the Netherlands government is skimping on quality. Common sense dictates that buying cheap comes at a price—“you get what you pay for” so “buy cheap, buy twice”. In its justice system this ultimately means the Netherlands government is cutting corners on your due process rights, such as your rights to clearly understand the charges against you. Imagine a trial where the interpreter’s pronunciation of English is so hard to understand, you hardly comprehend the words, let alone the exact charges and discussion at trial. This happens all the time in the Netherlands where the pronunciation of English is with a thick Dutch or other European accent. By procuring low-quality translations as cheap as possible, the Netherlands government shows it doesn’t really care about the due process rights of those that don’t speak Dutch. If it did, it wouldn’t be cutting corners on the quality of its translation and interpretation services.

If a defendant were to complain about the poor English language in the brochures, the Netherlands government could simply say: “Well, those are machine-generated translations—that’s how we got them that cheap—so blame the machine.” We all know, you can generate machine translations on any random website, social media or even dating apps and we all know about the low quality of those translations. Or the Netherlands government could respond to complaints by saying: “Although we bought them at the lowest price, you can’t complain because you’re getting them for free for your arrest or trial. What did you expect?”

However, that would mean they only have low-quality translators and that is certainly not the case. Quite the contrary, the Netherlands has many high-quality, highly-trained official translators with vast experience in criminal cases. It’s just that all that expertise doesn’t come cheap for those translators. They have to invest significantly in training and expertise. They can’t buy their training and expertise cheap. And yet, their training and expertise is precisely what makes all the difference for you when you receive their high-quality translations in important situations such as police custody or trial.

The main cause for the above problems and current situation is the Netherlands government shift in public procurement since 2021. It reduced its suppliers of interpreting and translation services for, among others, immigration agencies, law enforcement and the judiciary from thousands of sworn interpreters and sworn translators to two agencies which are neither sworn interpreters nor sworn translators. Although the Netherlands government imposed a minimum price for the services, the practical effect was that its minimum instantly turned into a maximum price the agencies pay their interpreters and translators, thus pocketing significant margins.

The agencies also use what most call “contracts of adhesion” requiring interpreters and translators to commit to a business day from something like 7 AM to 9 PM so as to avoid having to pay urgency fees for the many jobs beyond the normal 9 to 5 office hours. To make things worse, the government substantially reduced their pay to stunningly low amounts. They’re squeezing the linguists as much as they can, basically.

The Netherlands government’s stated purpose was to increase competition. That’s evidently a red herring. The public doesn’t know what stake the Netherlands government has in the agencies as it does in the publicly-held bank ABN AMRO, for instance, because the agencies are privately-held corporations that don’t have to give the public access to shareholder registers nor other ownership information.

Besides, you don’t need to be an economist to understand that reducing suppliers from thousands to 2 or a handful obviously has nothing to do with competition. Nor does its stated purpose have anything to do with getting better prices and better quality, quite the contrary, by imposing a minimum that immediately turned into a maximum price, the government is controlling price. If corporations would do this, it would be called price fixing.

Its stated purpose of increasing competition is simply not true. If anything, free market prices and competition have been obliterated, basically. This government action distorts prices, stifles competition, harms the economy and has resulted in an outflow of highly skilled and highly trained professionals who no longer wish to work with the government because it’s bad in virtually all aspects. Those that remain are mostly beginners, less qualified and experienced, willing to work for low pay and under extreme working conditions.

The end result for those that don’t speak Dutch is a chronic and acute lack or decimated availability of highly qualified and experienced sworn linguists and poor-quality translations across the board. The examples above are but a few. There are many horror stories of judges making up translations even though they are not official translators and even of defendants’ relatives trying to help them with some make-shift court interpreting at trial. There’s so much more that could be said about the Dutch situation but we’ll leave it here by saying that Plus Ultra doesn’t depend on the Dutch government.

These examples and circumstances are precisely the reason why Plus Ultra recommends you to understand the language problem you face in the Netherlands and how it affects you in your formalities and proceedings. The purpose of these examples and articles is to show you that you yourself can choose your own translator and not to depend on low-quality texts offered to you by the Netherlands government.

Being lawyer-linguists properly trained in both law and language, the translators of Plus Ultra specialize in legal translations and use their knowledge, skills and experience to deliver high-quality services to you.

Example 1

An expat hires a Dutch notary to complete the purchase of his new home. The notary’s services include documents and meetings in English. The notary doesn’t inform the expat that the documents and meetings will be translated by an external translator chosen by the notary. The expat agrees to the notary’s services not knowing who will translate nor that the translation services come at a hefty price. Although quoted as a single invoice item, the price for the English language service consists of the translator’s fees plus the notary’s cut of the translator’s fees, plus taxes. When the expat finds out how much he has to pay for the translations and that he could have gotten much it significantly much cheaper, he is informed that his contract with the notary doesn’t allow him to opt out, plus he already received some documents in English. The expat is not amused. When he finds out the translation and interpretation services are below par, he is very disappointed, to say the least.

Example 2

A non-Dutch company engages a Dutch attorney for legal matters. The attorney’s services include translation of Dutch documents. The attorney does not inform the company how he will have the documents translated, whether by a machine free of charge or by a professional and competent translator. The company agrees to the services not knowing who the translator is nor that the services come at a hefty price on top of the attorney’s fees, plus the attorney’s cut of the translation fees. When the company receives the translated documents, it can’t tell whether the translation is correct because it doesn’t speak Dutch, but it can certainly tell it’s a translation because it’s hard to follow. To solve the quality problem, the company ends up paying another competent translator of its own choosing to make a proper translation.

Translation Problems Harming You And Your Finances

These are just two real-life examples of many. They show two interrelated translation problems in the Netherlands. The first is the problem of the non-translation service provider turned intermediary who superimposes himself on the unassuming client who needs a translator. That is, the client needs a translator but the non-translation service provider forces the client to engage a certain translator selected by the service provider, not the client. The word “forces” is appropriate here because the client has virtually no option. Although the client agrees in advance to e.g. the notary’s services in English, he doesn’t even know he has to pay for an external translator nor who that translator is even. However, as soon as the expat receives a document in English, the notary has performed his part of the “translation contract” because the expat is already in possession of the translation. The expat’s problem is that he can’t verify the quality of the translation because he doesn’t even know who made it and he doesn’t speak the original language. Here, the expat is relying on the notary, but the notary is not a translator to guarantee or control translation quality. Why is it a problem when a non-translation service provider turned intermediary superimposes himself on a client who needs a translator? Because, although he is not a translator, he forces the client to pay for certain translation services, because he doesn’t allow the client to choose, and also because the client may thus be forced to pay for poor quality work. These are just three reasons but we’re sure you can come up with many more.

This brings us to the second problem: hefty translation fees. Let’s be clear, the intermediary is not going to do anything for free. He may charge his own fees for finding the translator, either through a direct fee or indirectly by factoring the translator’s fee in his own fee. When you’re not allowed to decide who’s going to perform the work, you lose control over the price you’ll have to pay. What’s worse is that the intermediary choosing for the client but is not himself a translator to guarantee or control translation quality. That is, since neither the expat nor intermediary guarantee or control translation quality, the expat might as well decide for himself who’s going to translate for him, since after all, he’s the one who is paying for the translations. You can save much money and headaches by simply choosing your own translator. This allows you to have more control over the service, price and quality. Think about it.

Section 42 of the Netherlands Office of Notary Act provides that instruments must be executed before a notary in the Dutch language. Whenever the appearer does not fully understand the language of the instrument, assistance of an interpreter who, where possible, must also be a sworn translator, is required to translate the main points of the instrument.

The Notary’s Responsibilities

The “appearer” is the person executing, or signing, the instrument in the presence of a notary. The notary has a statutory duty to determine whether the appearer sufficiently understands the language of the instrument and the information the notary gives about the instrument, which generally is the Dutch language. The notary also has the duty to give information about the instrument, such as its legal consequences. Please note that it won’t suffice for the notary to have the mere impression that the appearer sufficiently understands Dutch; instead, the notary must verify and ascertain that the appearer sufficiently understands Dutch. Appearers must understand what exactly they’re signing before the notary.

The notary has the duty to explain the instrument’s text to the appearers and ascertain that they’ve understood it. According to Netherlands case law, the notary’s duty to explain the instrument assumes more importance whenever the appearer is of age and doesn’t understand the language of the instrument. For that reason, whenever an appearer doesn’t sufficiently understand the language, assistance of a sworn translator isn’t an option but a requirement.

In the Bill for the Office of Notary Act (1993 – 1994, 23 706, A, p. 5, ¶1) the Netherlands Senate emphasized the importance of understanding and assistance of a sworn translator: “It’s important for the notary personally and also for each of the parties to the instrument that all parties fully understand the instrument. Consequently, each party (not just the party who doesn’t fully understand the language) has the right to require assistance of a sworn interpreter/translator.”

The Notary Isn’t Responsible For The Interpreter’s Errors

The party that needs the interpreter — not the notary — is responsible for engaging the interpreter. That is, the notary isn’t responsible for any mistake the interpreter makes. That’s the very reason why you yourself should take charge in finding and engaging your own interpreter and not leave it up to the notary’s office. Even though the notary’s office may financially benefit from finding you an interpreter, the notary’s office doesn’t have any responsibility at all for the quality of the interpreter’s service.

Notably, the parliamentary paper states that the parties must work out who will pay for the interpreter (Netherlands Senate, 1995 – 1996, 23 706, No. 6, p. 49). This means that, instead of leaving it up to the Netherlands notary’s office to force you to use whatever service they arrange for you, you, as the appearer, can contract and negotiate the best service and best price for you. You have the right to verify and require that the translation service offered by the notary’s office isn’t by just any random person who speaks your language a bit, but by a sworn interpreter or translator. You can choose yourself. Don’t accept anything less. Don’t accept services by self-proclaimed translators or individuals that don’t have the proper credentials and training.

The Language of The Law Is A Language In And Of Itself

This shows us how important it is to understand the language. Even in the English language legal English is a separate language in and of itself which is hard to understand even for those whose mother tongue is English. Therefore, if it’s important to understand the language, if you don’t speak the language a good translation becomes all the more important, even indispensable.

The Use Of Informal Translators Is Not Allowed

As section 42 requires the interpreter where possible to be “a sworn translator” it doesn’t allow informal translators or interpreters, nor friends or relatives who speak the language a bit or even well. Apart from the defect with informality, there’s an increased risk of incorrect translation of the notary’s information and explanation when the informal translator, such as a relative, himself has a personal interest in whatever is sought to be formalized in the instrument. The role played by the interpreter in translating the notary’s explanation is too important for informal treatment.

The statues and case law emphasize that if you don’t speak the language, a good translation becomes indispensable and assistance of a sworn translator is not an option but a duty.

If you speak English in the Netherlands

If you don’t speak Dutch but English, Netherlands case law dictates that assistance of an interpreter is required when English isn’t your mother tongue. This applies even when the notary gives his explanation in English of the instruments written in Dutch to appearers who fully understand English. The problem is determining whether they actual do fully understand English. First of all, English isn’t the official language of the Netherlands, so the number of people that sufficiently understand legal English is very limited. The vast majority of notaries and attorneys don’t speak legal English well, because they use dictionaries that aren’t made by either English-speaking lawyers or by English-speaking translator. Second, if the notary’s mother tongue isn’t English, the notary lacks the capacity to determine whether the appearers sufficiently understand English. Because the instruments are about legal matters (such as real estate, prenuptial agreements, stock transfers etc.), the notary, whose mother tongue is Dutch not English, is incapable of determining whether the appearers sufficiently understand not just English, but legal English, which is a language of its own. To understand conversational English is one thing, to explain 10 pages of a real estate purchase agreement in English is quite another.

Power Of Attorney For Dutch-Speaking Persons

If someone who doesn’t understand Dutch sufficiently, grants a power of attorney to someone of the notary’s office to execute an instrument on his behalf, no interpreter is required to execute the instrument. The notary must nonetheless ascertain that the parties to the instrument understand its contents. The same applies whenever a representative signs on behalf of company. In such case, the notary must verify whether the signing representative actually understands Dutch sufficiently.

Instruments And Other Documents In English

The notary is only allowed to execute instruments in English if he has a proper command of English. Additionally, the notary can only use documents in English or legalize the signatures therein if he properly understands English. This seems to be obvious, but this creates a significant risk and doubt as to whether the notary really understands it good enough. Although it seems to be obvious that the notary must be able to speak English well, the Netherlands has some very weird rules on this. For instance, the person deciding whether the notary has a proper command of English isn’t a native speaker of English but instead the notary himself. If this issue is raised in a complaint, the notary will have to persuade the Board of Ethics as to why he personally believes his English is good. This leaves room for the ipse dixit argument.

Conclusion

At Plus Ultra we’re very pleased to help folks by sharing this information. Contact us if you want to read the referenced statutory provisions and case law in Dutch. Meanwhile, here’s an example of Dutch case law that sums up the issues we’ve been discussing above. The following is a ruling on appeal (¶ 6.3.10) on a complaint filed by a Portuguese speaking party to a real estate purchase agreement before a Dutch notary.

“Section 42 of the Office of Notary Act provides — in essence — that the instrument must be executed in the Dutch language and that whenever any appearer does not sufficiently understand the language in the instrument, an interpreter must be engaged to translate the summarized contents of the instrument. The instrument was executed in Dutch. The evidence shows the purchaser does not speak the Dutch language. This means notary 2 breached said provision by failing to engage an interpreter, which is the notary’s fault. The fact that the purchaser sufficiently understands the English language and that notary 2 explained the instrument’s contents in English to the purchaser, is inapposite.”

Plus Ultra’s Lawyer-Linguists

The conclusion is that you yourself can choose your own sworn translator to translate your documents for the notary. Being lawyer-linguists properly trained in both law and language, the translators of Plus Ultra specialize in legal translations and use their knowledge, skills and experience to deliver high-quality services to you and your notary.

In this case multiple filed a complaint with the Board of Ethics claiming the notary failed to engage a sworn interpreter/translator to help them sign an agreement as the complainants don’t understand the Dutch language.

The notary responds (¶ 4.3.1) that engaging an interpreter — as required under section 42(1) of the Office of Notary Act — is only required when executing a public instrument, not when signing an agreement. The notary’s argument focuses on the distinction between public and private instruments, that is, between public documents that in the Netherlands require execution before a notary and private documents between private individuals, such as agreements, that do not require execution before a notary. The notary adds that before the complainants signed the agreement, the notary discussed the agreement in English with them in detail.

The Board of Ethics concludes (¶ 4.3.2) that the notary failed to rebut or to rebut convincingly the complainants’ claim that they didn’t understand the Dutch language when signing the agreement.

The translation requirement under section 42(1), the duty to inform the client under section 43 and the duty of due diligence under section 17(1) of the Office of Notary Act all apply to public instruments. However, the Board of Ethics concludes that signing private instruments, such as the agreement in this case, requires utmost accuracy by the notary. Accordingly, if the notary notices that his clients don’t understand the Dutch document they’ve come to sign, it doesn’t suffice to merely show his clients the agreement consisting of many pages to have them sign it, as did the notary in this case. His clients may not have fully understood what the agreement says nor fully understood what its legal consequences are. In fact, this notary only sent the complainants a draft of the agreement in Dutch, when the notary should’ve known that they by themselves couldn’t scrutinize the Dutch draft. Consequently, the Board of Ethics holds that it wasn’t enough for the notary to personally translate the main points of the agreement into English for them at his office. Importantly, the notary didn’t claim nor prove any circumstances which prevented from postponing the execution date of the agreement in order to give the complainants time to be adequately informed about its content and to properly understand it. For these reasons, the Board of Ethics holds that the notary breached his duty of due diligence and his duty to inform his clients for which he is professionally responsible. Accordingly, the Board of Ethics finds for the complainant.

The complainant filed this complaint after engaging a notary to dissolve 16 companies of which he was the executive. During the consultation the notary spoke in English with the executive about the main points of the documents, without the assistance of an interpreter. Upon executing the documents, the notary proceeded to register the dissolution of the companies in the Trade Register. Things didn’t turn out as the executive wanted, which led to this complaint against the notary.

The Board of Ethics found that no interpreter assisted during execution (¶ 4.4). Although the appearers mentioned in the documents were Dutch legal entities, limited liability companies, the person representing those companies, the executive, didn’t understand the Dutch language in the instrument. Consequently, the Board of Ethics holds that the notary had the duty under section 42 of the Office of Notary Act to execute the instrument with the assistance of an interpreter. For these reasons, the Board of Ethics finds for the complainant.

Nevertheless, the Board of Ethics does not impose a sanction on the notary, reasoning that it was likely that the executive must have understood the text of the instruments. The notary spoke with the executive in English about the main points of the instruments and the executive signed the instruments and took them with him. The executive had already received the drafts days before executing the instruments. Besides, during their prior consultation they had already talked in detail about the contents of the instruments

The same duty to verify the client’s dominion of the language applies to Dutch attorneys whose clients don’t understand the Dutch language.

This disciplinary complaint is against a Dutch attorney by a client who had engaged her to assist her in her divorce (¶ 2.2). She complains that the attorney’s service was very bad. One aspect of her bad service was the language problem at crucial moments for the client.

A divorce hearing was scheduled for March 15 at 1:15 P.M. but it wasn’t until the day prior to the hearing that the attorney requested an interpreter for her client’s language (¶ 2.4). The day of the hearing, at 11:21 A.M. — shortly before the hearing — the attorney informed her client that she hadn’t been able to find her an interpreter for her particular Arabic language and that she could try to find an interpreter for another Arabic language variation. Her client rapidly replied at 11:41 A.M. stating it would be better for her to receive assistance from an interpreter and that an interpreter for the Arabic language would be good (¶ 2.5). It turns out that the attorney failed to arrange an interpreter for her and this failure is part of the complaint.

In her defense the attorney claims (¶ 4.2) that she believed that her client didn’t need an interpreter as their communication had always been in Dutch and her client was doing an academic study at the time. Because the client requested an interpreter, the attorney tried to book one for her, but there wasn’t any available. The attorney believes that it isn’t her fault that she wasn’t able to find any interpreter for her.

The Board summarizes the complaint’s language problem as follows (¶ 5.2). The attorney failed to arrange an interpreter for her client’s hearing, even though the client did need an interpreter. The Board finds that right before the hearing the attorney (or her secretary) tried to find an interpreter without success. The Board holds that the attorney had the responsibility to check with (enough) time in advance whether her client needed an interpreter, given that the Dutch language was not her client’s mother tongue. The attorney cannot decide in advance for her client that her client won’t need an interpreter.

The attorney should’ve consulted her client with enough time and if she wanted assistance of an interpreter — as here — she should have been able to arrange an interpreter for her and actually done so. In this respect, the attorney failed to exercise due care. For this reason, the Board finds for the complainant.

This disciplinary complaint was filed by a lady against her ex-husband’s Dutch attorney who dragged her in some divorce matters although she didn’t properly understand the Dutch language, leaving her with serious problems.

An e-mail of the attorney engaged by the lady after being confronted with these serious problems, summarizes her ex-husband’s Dutch attorney’s conduct (¶ 2.24).

“You made a divorce settlement agreement that includes incorrect information. [. . .] Moreover, you state in the agreement that my client relinquishes her ownership of the home to your client, while my client didn’t even know what she signed for. My client told me that you didn’t ask my client whether she properly understands the Dutch language and you made my client sign an agreement, without assistance of counsel and without an interpreter for her, whereby she relinquished all her rights. Further, you fail to mention in the agreement that my client has invested over EUR 69,000 in the home.”

Because of these problems the client had to file legal proceedings to rescind the divorce settlement agreement (¶ 2.25). Additionally, she filed a disciplinary complaint against the ex-husband’s attorney. As for the language problem, the formal complaint states (¶ 3.3 (b)) that the attorney caused the lady to sign a divorce settlement agreement without assistance of counsel, while there’s no evidence that the attorney verified whether the lady understood the Dutch language and no evidence that the attorney gave the lady a proper explanation of the content of the divorce settlement agreement.

The dean of the bar association joined the action (¶ 5.7) stating that the attorney had committed an ethical violation by making the lady sign a divorce settlement agreement without assistance of counsel, while there’s no evidence that the attorney verified whether the lady understood the Dutch language nor any evidence that the attorney gave the lady a proper explanation of the content of the divorce settlement agreement.

The Board of Ethics finds for the complainant and dean (¶ 5.8, (b)). When an attorney represents one of the parties in writing a divorce settlement agreement, the attorney must exercise diligence and take into account the consequences that such agreements may have on the counterparty’s interests. If either party is harmed, the attorney must inform the affected party thereof and explain how the agreement affects such party, the more so when, as here, it’s known that Dutch is not the lady’s mother tongue. The Board finds that there’s no evidence that in the instant case the attorney complied with her enhanced duty of care. What’s more, here, the first thing the attorney had to do was to check with the lady’s attorney whether she was still representing the lady before writing the lady directly to invite her to her office to sign the divorce settlement agreement. There’s no evidence the attorney did so. Nor is there any evidence that the attorney, before signing the divorce settlement agreement, consulted the lady to verify whether she properly understood the Dutch language. The attorney has stated that, as stated in one of her e-mails, her husband had told her that the lady speaks Dutch at an academic level and that attorney had so noticed. Nevertheless, that e-mail, which seems to be based on information her own client gave her, does not constitute adequate verification of the lady’s Dutch language proficiency. Further, there’s no evidence that the attorney waited for the lady’s reply to said e-mail. The Board emphasizes that the attorney should have adopted a critical posture as to the lady’s language proficiency, in part based on the impression of the language proficiency the lady gave the Board at the hearing. Because the attorney also failed to clarify how she verified whether the lady understood the Dutch language sufficiently as to understand the divorce settlement agreement — a legal document with far-reaching consequences for the lady — the Board finds for the dean on this language aspect of the complaint.

Because it finds for the complainant and dean on all counts, the Board proceeds to impose a sanction (¶ 6.1). The Board holds that the attorney has harmed the lady’s interests in an impermissible way. The attorney has violated the Dutch ethical norms by making the lady sign a divorce settlement agreement without consulting the lady’s (last) attorney or checking with her whether she was still being represented by that attorney. Further, there’s no evidence that the attorney verified, before signing the divorce settlement agreement whether the lady properly understood the Dutch language and whether she understood the text of the divorce settlement agreement.

This disciplinary complaint is against a Dutch attorney who in the context of distributing an inheritance — which included a home — committed multiple ethics violations against his client, a lady who doesn’t speak the Dutch language and who represents her minor daughter, the only heir. We’ll focus on two violations: his unlawful sale of the inherited home and his tactics to make the complainant sign an important agreement.

Without obtaining any professional real-estate advice or a valuation report, the attorney sold the home for a price, EUR 300,000, that was nearly half of the market value (¶ 3.8, b). He sold for that price, even though the tenant had already offered a higher price to buy the home. Shortly after the sale, though, the home was put up for sale again but this time for EUR 640,000. The Board finds (¶ 5.6) that the attorney sold the home without obtaining proper advice about the property’s value. For instance, the attorney did not seek advice from nor engage any real-estate agent, appraiser or similar independent expert — as is usually done in Netherlands real estate transactions — to determine the property’s sale price. The attorney thus failed to seek the best price to sell the home, thereby harming the estate liquidator’s interest, while additionally going against his client’s instructions. The attorney’s claim that he acted in his client’s interest by consenting to the private sale, is inapposite, because the attorney made his client sign a statement in which he consented to the sale for a price of EUR 300,000, knowing that someone else had offered a (much) higher price for the home, that she had a right of first refusal and while he knew or at least should have known that the purchase price of EUR 300,000 was much lower (approximately half) than the actual price of the home. By doing so the attorney severely harmed his (financial) interest of his client who was the legal representative of her daughter, a minor and the only heir. Accordingly, the Board finds for the complainant as to the complaint relative to the home.

The Board also finds for the complainant about the settlement agreement (¶ 5.9). The attorney made his client sign a settlement agreement which states that the parties wish to end their disputes, granting one another full acquittance and discharge, while relinquishing any disciplinary and civil complaints against one another. Because the attorney should have protected his client’s interests and thereby the estate’s interests, the attorney should have ascertained whether his client understood the settlement agreement’s text and consequences such that he understood what she was signing. The attorney has failed to refute, or at least refute sufficiently, that his client did not properly understand the Dutch language or that she didn’t understand what she was signing. Apart from that, the Board can’t see how signing the settlement agreement by his client would serve the estate’s or his client’s interests. The Board holds that signing the settlement agreement only served the interests of his firm’s fellow attorney and his other client, not the interests of his client.

The Board adds (¶ 6.2) that the attorney’s actions severely harmed his client’s interests, especially her financial interest. The harm the attorney caused his client and her daughter — the only heir — is severe. The Board highlights the importance of the fact that his client does not properly understand the Dutch language but even so the attorney made her sign multiple documents that have serious consequences for her and her daughter, without ascertaining whether his client understood their contents and consequences.

This complaint was filed by a non-Dutch-speaking complainant after engaging a notary to transfer his company’s shares. The complainant was convinced that the transfer would be done the same day after meeting with the notary. The complainant alleges that he wasn’t assisted by an interpreter during the consultation at the notary’s office, nor was he asked by the notary whether he had understood the matters they had discussed. The complainant further claims the notary failed to give him adequate information or any explanation about the transaction. The complainant suffered damages because he believed that after their meeting at the notary’s office, he would no longer be the owner of the shares in his limited liability company as a result of which he gave his corporate properties to someone else (bank cards etc.). It turns out he was mistaken. According to the complaint, the notary violated section 42 of the Office of Notary Act for failure to engage an interpreter and violated section 43 for failing to inform the complainant adequately.

At the disciplinary hearing the notary stated that she never doubted that the complainant sufficiently understood the Dutch language. The Board of Ethics found that during their meeting the notary made the complainant sign a power of attorney even when they still weren’t clear as to how exactly that power was to transfer his shares. Because signing a power of attorney was habitual practice at the notary’s office and the matter was urgent, the notary should’ve done more to inform the complainant about the consequences of signing the power. The complaint filings and the notary’s defense show that there is insufficient evidence that the notary properly inquired what the complainant exactly wanted. The notary didn’t properly verify whether complainant had understood the consequences of signing the power of attorney. At the disciplinary hearing the Board of Ethics found that there was no evidence that the complainant sufficiently understood the Dutch language. The notary’s mere impression that he did have sufficiently understood the Dutch language was insufficient. The notary should’ve engaged an interpreter or at least should’ve asked questions to the complainant to verify. For these reasons, the Board of Ethics finds for the complainant

The complainant states that the notary failed to inform her adequately during her divorce. She claims that she doesn’t understand the Dutch language well. She blames the notary for not engaging an interpreter during execution of the instrument. The complainant states that the notary’s fault is more serious because during execution there was an imbalance between her position and that of her ex-husband because he does speak Dutch.

The notary in turn responds that he did ask the complainant whether she needed an interpreter to which she responded she didn’t, adding that during their consultations he found that the complainant spoke Dutch very well.

As to whether the notary should have engaged an interpreter during the consultations with the complainant and her ex-husband and during execution of the instrument, the Board of Ethics holds as follows.

The notary’s duty of due diligence requires the notary to ascertain that each of the parties to the legal transaction before the notary is sufficiently capable to understand the commitments she’s undertaking and the rights she’s acquiring or relinquishing. In this context, section 42 of the Office of Notary Act requires that an interpreter be engaged for execution of instruments at the notary’s office whenever one of the signatories does not fully understand the instrument’s language.

The Board of Ethics proceeds to analyze how the notary verified whether he needed to engage an interpreter and how the notary determined he didn’t need to. The Board gives weight to the fact that the notary showed proof of the matters he discussed with the complainant and the adequate answers she gave during that conversation. Because of her adequate answers the notary could reasonably conclude that engaging an interpreter was not necessary. Furthermore, the Board of Ethics gives importance to the fact that prior to execution the complainant had much time to ask for pre-execution consultations with the assistance of an interpreter, but she didn’t do so nor did she herself engage an interpreter on the date of execution.

It’s important to emphasize that the official language of the Netherlands is not English but Dutch. Because the Netherlands’ official language is Dutch, most notaries don’t have a proper command of the English language, let alone legal English. However, the language of notary instruments (deeds, wills etc.) is legal Dutch. In the Netherlands it’s very hard to find the perfect equivalent in English legal. If your mother tongue isn’t English and you use a translation in English, you’re doing a double translation: first from Dutch to English, with the risk of misunderstandings because English isn’t the official language, nor that of public instruments, and second from English to your mother tongue in your mind, with the risk of misunderstandings because English isn’t your mother tongue. With this in mind, let’s have a look at the following complaint which shows why it’s always better to use a sworn interpreter for your mother tongue.

In this complaint the complainant, who speaks neither the Dutch nor the English language, claims she and a friend went to the notary’s office to sign a € 190,000 guarantee to help the friend’s mother to purchase a home (¶ 3.2). While the complainant was still in the waiting room, her friend and the notary were talking in another room. After a while, the notary enters the waiting room asking the complainant whether she understands English. She answers in the affirmative and is requested to sign a power of attorney, not a guarantee.

About a month later (¶ 3.3) the complainant is arrested on suspicion of money laundering, uttering forged instruments and fraud. It wasn’t until after the arrest that she finds out that she and her friend’s mother were the registered new owners of a home with a mortgage liability of € 920,000.

The complainant, who speaks neither the Dutch nor the English language, complains that the notary breached sections 42 and 43 of the Office of Notary Act (¶ 3.4) because she wasn’t assisted by an interpreter when executing instruments with the notary. The complainant was interviewed twice in a criminal investigation into the transaction in question before the notary. The complainant wasn’t sure what exactly the power of attorney she was supposed to sign said. The notary had not informed her at all about the power of attorney before she signed it, nor about the consequences of the legal transactions stated in the power of attorney. The complainant wasn’t even given a copy of the power of attorney.

The touchstone for analyzing these complaints (¶ 5.8) is the rule that the notary has the duty of due diligence to do whatever is required to ensure that the legal consequences of the legal transactions memorialized in the public instrument come into effect. Because third parties participating in public transactions must be able to rely on the public instrument, the notary must perform this duty, not for just the participants in the legal transactions stated in the public instrument, but for all interested parties.

This duty of due diligence has multiple aspects (¶ 5.9). For example, when executing a public instrument, the notary must ascertain that the public instrument actually expresses the will of the parties. The notary must verify whether the legal consequence of the legal transaction to be formalized is really what the parties want. Additionally, the notary must inform the parties about the legal consequences of the legal transaction they want to effectuate. All these aspects require as a prerequisite that the parties have an adequate command of the language in which the instrument is written such that when they read it, they understand its text, which often is complex, and that they have an adequate command of the language that allows them to communicate with the notary so that the notary can perform his official duties.

In its ruling (¶ 5.10) the Board of Ethics gave much weight to the probability that the foreign complainant did not understand the English language sufficient to satisfy the aforesaid requirements. The Board of Ethics gave much importance to the fact that the police had interviewed the complainant twice during the criminal investigation. The police did find it necessary to engage an interpreter for her mother tongue. The notary in his defense claims that the complainant had stated to the police that she “speaks a bit of English.” However, on that same occasion the complainant also told them that she couldn’t read English, which in itself is cause to engage an interpreter for her mother tongue. In fact, in general “a bit” is not enough to understand the implications of a power of attorney as complex as the one at hand.

The Board of Ethics further held (¶ 5.11) that the power of attorney at hand had very serious consequences. By signing it, the complainant locked herself into a contract involving a very large sum (a mortgage of EUR 920,000) in favor of a third party (her friend) who had implicated her in the criminal investigation. Furthermore, the power of attorney was very general and didn’t mention any sum, not even the purchase price nor the amount of the mortgage loan.

Moreover, the notary thought the transaction was very peculiar: a mother and her daughter-in-law buying a house worth almost a million Euros. For that reason, the notary was under a duty to exercise much care and caution in verifying the identity and command of the language of the person who was holding herself out as a party in the instrument.

The notary’s statements show that she was convinced that the complainant had understood the instrument’s contents, sufficiently understood the English language and, as a result, assistance of an interpreter wasn’t necessary (¶ 5.17). Nevertheless, the Board of Ethics couldn’t verify the basis for her conviction, because it hadn’t found any nor had the notary demonstrated any basis or corroboration. For these reasons, the Board finds for the complainant concluding that the notary should’ve made sure that the complainant had understood the commitments she had undertaken by signing the power of attorney (¶ 5.21). According to the Board of Ethics, because this instrument had very serious consequences, the transaction was unusual and the notary received all the instructions and correspondence from someone other than the complainant (her friend), the notary had a heightened duty of care

This disciplinary proceeding comes after multiple complainants engaged a notary to write and execute a power of attorney. They allege that the notary failed to adequately verify what one of them wanted. What’s worse, they complain that the notary also failed to give them a draft of the power of attorney and that he executed the power of attorney without the assistance of a sworn interpreter. One complainant claims the notary only listened to her daughter who hardly understands Dutch. All of this caused the complainants to incur many expenses as they had to revoke the power of attorney for being broader than they wanted.

The notary responds that the complainant in fact had understood the Dutch-language text of the power of attorney she signed. The notary claims he had a consultation with her about the power of attorney in which her daughter assumed the role of informal translator. That’s why the notary was convinced that the complainant had understood what she was about to sign.

The Board of Ethics emphasizes that section 42 of the Office of Notary Act provides that whenever an appearer doesn’t sufficiently understand language of the instrument, an interpreter has to be engaged, who, where possible also has to be a sworn translator. The Board of Ethics concludes that the notary did not meet this requirement by allowing the daughter to assume the role of translator. Apart from the fact that it’s unknown to what extent the daughter understood the Dutch language, she was not a sworn translator. In other words, the Board doesn’t know whether the daughter understood the Dutch language well, but it does know that she was not a sworn interpreter. Furthermore, this case required someone other than the daughter else to interpret because she herself was the subject of the power of attorney.

This complaint was filed by a Spanish complainant who had been married to a Dutch husband who got her into some serious trouble at the notary’s office.

In 2011, they were living in Spain and co-owners of a condominium. They seemed to be in the process of selling it because by mid-2011 a real estate agent sent a purchase agreement with their signatures on it to a Dutch notary.

By September 2011, the husband signed a “power of attorney for real property” in which the complainant seemed to have authorized him to instruct the notary’s office to execute the transfer deed to close the transaction. The power of attorney allegedly was based on a power of attorney written by a notary in Spain earlier that year. The husband, not the wife, sent the Spanish power of attorney to the Dutch notary’s office. A copy of that power of attorney was stamped and signed as a “true copy” by the Dutch notary’s fellow notary (who doesn’t speak Spanish).

In October 2011 the Dutch notary — in the absence of the wife — executed the deed transferring ownership of the couple’s condominium. By mid-2012 the notary sent the following letter to her husband stating that the notary had executed the deed in October 2011 in which the husband authorized on his own and on his spouse’s behalf the transfer of ownership of the couple’s condominium. At the time the husband had stated that his spouse had granted him a power of attorney to sign the transfer deed on her behalf. “However, your spouse states that she never granted you a power of attorney to alienate the property. This means that title to the property has not been transferred and that you were not entitled to receive payment of the purchase price.” Accordingly, the notary requests reimbursement of the unduly paid € 270,001.67 and to contact him to solve the problem.

In the ensuing talks with her attorney the notary apologizes for failing to properly verify the power of attorney and for being too quick to believe the husband. He admits, among other things, that he had received the power of attorney from the husband, not the wife, that neither him or his fellow notary obtained a translation of the power of attorney, that they also failed to verify the wife’s signature on the power of attorney and, more importantly, that the wife was not even present during execution of the transfer deed.

In this disciplinary proceeding the Board of Ethics found that the power of attorney written in the Spanish language didn’t include any authorization to sell the condominium. The notary admitted at the hearing that he had failed to obtain a translation, believing that his coworker, a fellow notary, had verified the power of attorney to sell. However, his coworker had only made a certified copy of the power of attorney, that is, his fellow notary had made a copy of the original certifying that the copy was identical to the original. Regardless, the first notary should have verified the text of the power of attorney. If he himself didn’t understand the Spanish language – the Board of Ethics has no evidence that the notary did understand Spanish – he should have obtained a translation of the power of attorney in order to check what it says. Apart from that, he didn’t seem to have verified the complainant’s signature in the purchase agreement either. Further, the notary didn’t send the correspondence addressed to the complainant to her directly but to someone else. Therefore, the Board of Ethics found that the notary in fact had breached his duty of due care. For these reasons, the Board of Ethics finds for the complainant.

In this complaint the complainant claims that the notary didn’t give her the proper dedication as his client. The complaint focusses in part (¶ 5.3) on the notary’s legalization of a signature in a document written in the French language. The complainant had informed the notary that the document was meant to renounce an inheritance. Such renunciation is a legal matter which, as the notary knows, may have serious financial consequences. Although he admitted he didn’t sufficiently understand the French language, the notary nonetheless legalized the signature.

The Board of Ethics concludes that under these special circumstances the notary should’ve exercised more care in legalizing the signature. Before legalizing the signature, he should’ve checked whether his client had understood the document she was signing. The notary failed to do so, or failed to do so adequately. For these reasons, the Board of Ethics finds that he didn’t adequately pursue his client’s interests.

Additionally, the notary had repeatedly promised her to write a letter to a French notary; however, despite her repeated e-mails, the notary never did. According to the Board of Ethics, once the notary was aware of his omission, he should’ve answered his client’s e-mails as soon as possible and performed his promise to help her. Therefore, the Board of Ethics finds for the complainant.

In this complaint on appeal the complainant claims it wasn’t until the divorce proceeding that she found out that she had signed an instrument to modify her prenuptial agreement’s marital property distribution during marriage (¶ 2.1). The complainant never knew that she had signed against her interest.

The complainant alleges that before signing the instrument she never had had any contact with the notary (¶ 2.2). The notary only had contact with her ex-husband because they knew each other well. In those days, the complainant hardly spoke or understood any Dutch. The notary allegedly had not, or not adequately, informed her about the instrument’s contents before signing it. She complains that when they executed the instrument to modify the prenuptial agreement, the notary had not given any explanation about the instrument nor asked the complainant whether she had understood its content.

The Board of Ethics holds that if the complainant did not understand the Dutch language, she had not provided the Board enough arguments as to why she did not ask the notary for an interpreter or a translation of the instrument (¶ 4.3). If the complainant did not understand what the instrument said because she did not understand the language sufficiently, it was her responsibility to ask for a translation

The lady filing this complaint had been a few years in the Netherlands when she moved in with a Dutch man (¶ 2.1). After some time, they engaged a Dutch notary’s office to write and execute a cohabitation agreement (¶ 2.2). One of the notaries executed the instrument in the presence of the complainant and her partner with the assistance of a sworn interpreter for her mother tongue who also signed the instrument. Subsequently, her partner engaged the same notary’s office to write and execute their prenuptial agreement. The notary’s office sent a draft prenuptial agreement, though only to her partner. The complainant was still taking civic integration courses in the Netherlands when she signed the prenuptial agreement at the notary’s office. The couple later married which ended in divorce. According to the complainant, it wasn’t until the divorce proceeding that she found out what the prenuptial agreement said.

In her complaint the complainant states that the notary committed two violations during execution of the prenuptial agreement (¶ 3.1). First, the notary executed the agreement without the complainant knowing in advance what it exactly said. Second, during execution the notary failed to determine whether she understood the Dutch language adequately so as to understand the prenuptial agreement’s text without the assistance of an interpreter.

Although the Board of Ethics does not find for the complainant because the statute of limitations had expired, it did make some observations. First, the complainant had visited the notary’s office previously to sign the cohabitation agreement in the presence of the notary’s coworker with the assistance of an interpreter. Although it may be assumed that this visit had familiarized the complainant with the proceeding for executing an instrument before a notary, she nevertheless decided to sign the prenuptial agreement, which was written in the Dutch language, without the assistance of an interpreter. Apart from that, the Board of Ethics finds that it’s common knowledge that signing a public instrument isn’t free of obligations but comes with legal consequences, without entering into details as to what exactly those consequences are. During the hearing the complainant added that when she signed the prenuptial agreement, she didn’t feel well. Nevertheless, that argument didn’t sway the Board of Ethics. If the complainant was implying that she wasn’t aware of the notary’s alleged negligence at the time, she must have been aware that she didn’t know what she in fact had just signed. Within three years of signing, she should have asked the notary or checked in some way what she had signed and file the pertinent complaint. Because she let time pass without doing so, the statute of limitations has run so her complaint is dismissed.

In her complaint the non-Dutch complainant, formerly married to a Dutch man, claims that the notary was uncareful when writing the prenuptial agreement and executing the instrument. The foreign complainant, formerly married to a Dutch man, complains that the notary was uncareful when writing the prenuptial agreement and executing the instrument. The complainant alleges that because she didn’t understand Dutch sufficiently when executing the instrument, she didn’t know what the prenuptial agreement said and it wasn’t until the divorce proceeding that she found out. The complainant claims that the notary should’ve engaged an interpreter.

For purposes of the statute of limitations the Board of Ethics must determine when the complainant found out about the notary’s alleged failure to engage an interpreter for purposes of executing the instrument (¶ 4.3).

The complainant is the only one who knows what she did understand of the instrument during execution. Therefore, she herself should have made it known that she didn’t understand the instrument and, if necessary, that she wanted an interpreter.

Even if the complainant didn’t understand the Dutch language sufficiently to understand the instrument and the notary should have known it at the time, she filed the complaint too late. When she executed the instrument, the complainant was aware that she didn’t properly understand it and that the notary nonetheless had not engaged an interpreter. If it wasn’t during but after execution of the instrument that the complainant found out that she had misunderstood the instrument, then the notary is at fault for failure to engage an interpreter when during execution of the instrument the notary should’ve known that the complainant was at risk of misunderstanding the instrument or even just some words in Dutch in the instrument. The complaint is dismissed, but because of the statute of limitations

This complaint was filed after the complainant had engaged a notary in the Netherlands to write a power of attorney to distribute an inheritance in Surinam and British Guyana. After writing and executing the power of attorney, the notary sent the complainant a sworn translation that was incomplete. The translation failed to include certain important details that were included in the power of attorney, such as the forenames and surnames and the date the deceased had died. Because the translation was incomplete the complainant couldn’t use it. As a result, the complainant filed this complaint, which includes a complaint about the translation. Naturally, one can’t help but ask how on earth could a sworn translation omit such important details from such an important document.

Even so, the Board of Ethics concludes that the notary isn’t responsible for the error in the translation of the power of attorney, because she had instructed a sworn translator to translate the power of attorney. The notary could rely on the translator to make a complete and correct translation. For that reason, it finds for the notary.

Wait, so, basically, the notary — not the complainant — picked and engaged a translator who made a sworn translation for the complainant that turned out to be useless. Who paid for the translation, though? This case proves exactly why Plus Ultra insists it’s always better for you to pick your own translator yourself.

This complaint was filed after a non-Dutch-speaking elderly lady found herself in an abusive situation. Her daughter and her daughter’s future husband (who was also the mother’s family doctor) managed to execute three instruments (the mother’s will, living will and some powers of attorney) in which they dictated what they were going to inherit from the mother and how her assets would be distributed, while giving themselves broad powers. The daughter and her future husband/doctor — not the mother — engaged a notary. Additionally, the daughter — not the mother — would communicate with the notary, receive the draft instruments and meet to prepare execution. The only thing the mother had to do was to sign in the notary’s presence. And that’s what happened. Shortly thereafter, the mother died at her nursing home (¶ 2.9). That same year, her daughter and doctor (¶ 2.10) celebrated their marriage.

The notary made some false statements in the instruments, claiming, for example, that the mother was living with her daughter when in reality she was living at a nursing home. The notary also made the following false statement (¶ 2.8):

“NO INTERPRETER/TRANSLATION

[The mother] stated to me, the notary, that she sufficiently understands the language of this instrument, as I noticed, and that she does not need a translation from a sworn interpreter under section 42(1) of the Office of Notary Act.”

According to the complaint (¶ 4.14), the notary never had any conversation or consultation with the mother in her capacity of testatrix/principal about what she herself wanted to include in her instruments, even though the instruments included her very personal will and testament. Obviously, proper execution requires at least having a face-to-face consultation with the person signing the instruments. However, the only conversation that the notary had about the three instruments was with third parties who, moreover, had a very personal financial interest, namely: her daughter and her daughter’s future husband who was also her mother’s family doctor. During that single conversation her daughter and her daughter’s future husband were the ones who dictated what to include in her mother’s instruments. Therefore, according to the complaint, the notary breached his duty to inform the mother adequately as required under section 43 of the Office of Notary Act.

Whenever one of the signatories doesn’t properly understand the instrument’s language, section 42 of the Office of Notary Act requires notaries to perform their duty to inform under section 43 of said Act with the assistance of an interpreter. In this case multiple circumstances show that the mother didn’t properly understand the Dutch language. This was exacerbated by the complexity of the instruments’ legal and medical contents.

• The mother was born and raised in Germany and later lived France.
• Multiple testimonies showed the mother only spoke German and French, not Dutch.
• The notary stated that he communicated with her in German.
• During execution the notary himself gave an “oral translation” in German of the instruments.

The complaint states that because the notary didn’t obtain a German or French translation of the instruments nor engage an interpreter, even though he was required to do so, the notary violated section 42 of the Office of Notary Act.

The Board of Ethics holds that notaries may assume to have fully performed their duty to inform once they have ascertained that the appearers — the signatories — have understood the instrument’s content. Further, whenever an appearer is a foreigner — in this case the mother whose mother tongue was German — who doesn’t understand the Dutch language, section 42(1) of the Office of Notary Act requires assistance of an interpreter. The word “understand” in section 42(1) of the Office of Notary Act means that the appearer must understand the instrument’s language. Although the notary stated that he was convinced that the mother had understood the instruments, the Board of Ethics found his conviction to be unfounded. In fact, the mother couldn’t read or speak the Dutch language and the notary seemed to find it necessary to explain the contents of the instruments in German to her. The Board holds that because he failed to obtain a German translation of the instruments and to engage an interpreter, the notary violated section 42(1) of the Office of Notary Act and breached his duty to inform under section 43 of said Act. The fact that the notary himself gave an explanation in the German language, doesn’t sway the Board. For these reasons, the Board of Ethics finds for the complainant.

In her complaint the complainant claims (¶ 3.3) that the notary failed to write her prenuptial agreement correctly and failed to inform her properly about the agreement. She claims the notary’s conduct was not as expected from an impartial and independent notary. The complainant states that the notary failed to inform her properly about the legal impact of the prenuptial agreement and about her rights under Netherlands law. She adds that when she signed the agreement over a decade ago, she was given a version of the document in the Dutch language and she was asked to sign it immediately. When she asked for a translation in English, the notary told her there was none available. Because the prenuptial agreement was written in Dutch, she couldn’t understand the text. What’s more, she didn’t have any attorney present to represent her. At the time, the notary himself gave her an informal and improvised oral translation of the document. According to the notary, there wasn’t enough time to order a translation before the wedding date, because they wouldn’t have enough time to register their marriage. The complainant claims she felt pressed to sign the document. She never received any copy the prenuptial agreement either. She states that the notary wasn’t impartial, in part because he had to make sure the parties were aware of what they were about to sign, but he failed to do so. However, the complaint was dismissed because the statute of limitations had run.

Note that the complaint was dismissed not on its merits but because of the statute of limitations. The lady’s complaints aren’t the first and won’t be the last, because in the Netherlands racism and discrimination are serious problems that very often arise at work, notary’s offices, courts, board of ethics, and law enforcement etc. It’s very common to hear that, as in this case, someone felt and was under the impression that the notary or judge was not impartial. If you’re not Dutch and it’s obvious either because of your skin color or your accent or because you don’t speak the language or any other reason, the way they will treat will be very different from the way they treat their own people. Obviously, some have a very clear interest in denying racism and discrimination exist in the Netherlands, even if they’re subject to it but they don’t want to lose their job or because they have some other personal interest. The reality is very crude, however. It’s not for no reason that the word “apartheid”, the government policy of racial segregation, is a Dutch word.

Accordingly, the case of the lady who felt harmed by the Dutch notary’s lack of impartiality is very common. There are ways to prevent from ending up in this type of situations where the lady is the only non-Dutch who has to sign a document with very serious consequences against her self-interest but who doesn’t know what to do because she can’t speak the language and depends on a Dutch person (her ex).

Accordingly, the case of the lady who felt harmed by the Dutch notary’s lack of impartiality is very common. There are ways to prevent from ending up in this type of situations where the lady is the only non-Dutch who has to sign a document with very serious consequences against her self-interest but who doesn’t know what to do because she can’t speak the language and depends on a Dutch person (her ex).

This is another case of potential abuse due to lack of legal knowledge or a vulnerable position in a real-estate purchase where one of the parties didn’t understand the Dutch language. In a nutshell, the notary himself wrote and sent a real-estate purchase agreement to his clients, buyer and purchaser, who signed and returned it. The notary didn’t have any contact with the person who signed on the seller’s behalf nor did the notary personally verify whether that person in fact had understood the text. Although the papers are signed the deal doesn’t go through. Litigation ensues, including against the notary. See the publication in Dutch with its considerations, background and further details.

The problems started when a Dutch real estate agent asks a notary to write a purchase agreement for some country’s embassy which was represented as the seller in the sale by its ambassador who doesn’t speak Dutch. Without contacting the embassy, the notary tells the agent he’s going to write the agreement in the Dutch language and obtain a translation in the English language. The next day the agent starts to pressure the notary to finish and send the agreement. The notary responds that he has almost finished the agreement in Dutch but that it will take at least another day to get the translation in English. The agent nevertheless insists he deliver the agreement in Dutch because the ambassador has to travel the next day.

The notary then sends the agent the draft agreement but only in Dutch. Although it mentions the name of the notary’s office, it doesn’t mention it’s a draft. The agent tells the notary that he’ll read the text that same evening with the ambassador and the buyer. Because the agent tells the notary they won’t need the notary at the meeting, the notary doesn’t attend.

The next day, the agent sends the notary the document signed by the ambassador and the buyer. Without contacting the embassy, the notary then writes a draft of the public instrument memorializing and formalizing the purchase agreement.

In the end, though, the embassy decides it wants to pull out of the sale. Litigation ensues, including against the notary with the ambassador alleging misunderstandings about the draft and failure of the notary to verify whether the ambassador, who doesn’t speak Dutch, had understood the document and its consequences.

According to the Board of Ethics, the notary should’ve known that both parties would immediately sign the document the notary had sent to them. That was clear from the agent’s urgency and notice about the ambassador’s travel. The fact that the notary was surprised by the speed with which they signed, doesn’t absolve him of his duty. What’s more, he subsequently also failed to personally verify whether the ambassador had understood the document he had signed. When the notary later finally received the translation in the English language, he also failed to forward it to the parties.

The Board of Ethics concludes that the notary unduly abdicated his duties and control to others. If the notary personally writes the agreement, then generally he has the duty to inform the parties about its consequences. This duty requires the notary to inquire whether the parties have properly understood and accepted the agreement’s contents and consequences. The office of notary requires him to do his utmost to prevent abuse of the lack of legal knowledge or a vulnerable position. That’s in fact what Rule 4(1) of the Rules of Professional Ethics and Discipline requires. The notary must take notice of any special circumstances of the situation, as here where one of the clients, the ambassador, doesn’t understand Dutch well. That’s what section 42 of the Office of Notary Act is about, even though it doesn’t apply literally.

The notary’s personal responsibility in all of these aspects is based on Rule 2 of the Rules of Professional Ethics and Discipline: including when a client wants otherwise, the notary is bound by his duty to fulfill the tasks he is required to do as a notary as part of his work for his client, including when third parties have already done part of the work.

Therefore, when he abdicates his duties — more specifically, allows an agent to perform the entire inquiry the notary is supposed to do — the notary is taking a risk that the party in question doesn’t (fully) understand a document that’s important to the party and that bears the notary’s name. In this procedure we don’t analyze whether the risk materialized nor whether it was the agent’s fault. The notary couldn’t rely on just the agent’s words, much less allow the agent to tell the notary he didn’t need to attend their meeting to sign the agreement the evening in question.

Accordingly, the Board of Ethics found for the complainant. The notary appealed the ruling but on appeal the Board of Ethics Appeals affirmed the ruling. See the publication in Dutch with its considerations, background and further details.

Let’s analyze two problems. First, the notary gives the parties only a draft in the Dutch language, even though one of them does not understand the language.

Second, the notary doesn’t attend his clients’ meeting to give explanations and answers about the text. Because the draft bore the notary’s office’s name, it was safe for his client to assume the document was the final version for signing, the more so because it didn’t mention it was a draft. The notary’s presence during signing was indispensable. It didn’t suffice to hand over a draft in Dutch nor did it suffice to hand over the draft with its translation. The notary should’ve been there to explain and answer any questions about the document.

The following case is a 2020 dispute between a notary and his client before a commission for consumer disputes (see original in Dutch). They disagree as to who has to pay for the interpreter’s services at the notary’s office.

In March 2019 the complainant engaged the notary to execute multiple public instruments for a real-estate transaction. The notary made an appointment for October 9, 2019 at his office. Before the appointment the notary asked his client in writing to confirm whether he wanted the notary to engage an interpreter for the appointment. The notary expressly informed him that the client would have to pay for the interpreter. Keep in mind how easy it is for the notary to call an interpreter for his client, because we’ll see the many problems that this arrangement causes.

On September 25, 2019, the client confirmed by e-mail that he would need an interpreter for the appointment. The client asked how much the interpreter charged per hour and how long the interpreter needed to work at the notary’s office. The notary responded by e-mail of October 1, 2019 that it would take about 30 to 45 minutes and that he would ask the interpreter for his rates. On October 3, 2019 2019, the client asked the notary to send him the notary’s invoice to pay it immediately, including the interpreter’s fees. The notary sent his invoice the next day and included EUR 235.95 in interpreting fees. The client paid the bill in full before the appointment.

The problems start when the interpreter arrives at the notary’s office for the appointment. When they’re all at the notary’s office, the notary finds out that they won’t be needing an interpreter after all. That is, it wasn’t until they were all ready to sign at the notary’s office that the notary found out that his client and his wife didn’t need an interpreter. However, the interpreter was already at the notary’s office. The interpreter, for his part, had already incurred costs for the appointment because he had prepared the reading and translation of the documents and had come over to the notary’s office, though only to be confronted with the news that they no longer needed his services.

The client claims he doesn’t need to pay those EUR 235.95, because the interpreter didn’t render any services when he executed the documents at the notary’s office. As a result, the client asks the notary to reimburse the interpreter’s fees he had paid. Further, the notary also confirmed during execution that the client and his wife didn’t need the interpreter and that he would reimburse EUR 235.95.

Apparently, the notary didn’t keep his promise to reimburse him (in time) so the client filed a complaint with the Netherlands consumer-dispute commission alleging they can’t charge him EUR 235.95 and claiming damages for the harm suffered.

The notary responds that he didn’t deem it improper to charge the interpreter’s fees to his client because the interpreter had spent time in preparing the translation of the documents, before their appointment, and in going to the notary’s office on the date of the appointment to render his services. Although the notary didn’t agree with the client’s posture and claim, after being confronted with his client’s complaint, the notary proceeded to reimburse him the EUR 235.95 euros.

The consumer-dispute commission starts by saying that it’s very reasonable to have the client, not the notary, pay the interpreter. The commission concludes that the notary was reasonable, as could be expected from a reasonable and competent notary. Therefore, it finds for the notary. According to the commission, the notary was very obliging in reimbursing those fees. The commission dismisses the client’s damages claim for lack of sufficient evidence of any harm caused by the notary.

Plus Ultra Takeaways

As a client, you can do multiple things to prevent this kind of problems and disputes with notaries in the Netherlands. Although the notary and client discussed the interpreter’s fees in advance, the notary failed to check in advance whether his client actually needed an interpreter—even though he had months to find out.

Another point is that the client allowed the notary to engage an interpreter for him at the client’s expense. But why would you allow the notary to take control of a service that’s entirely meant for you, not the notary, when at the end of the day, you’re the one who’s paying for it, not the notary? Although perhaps it’s a matter of convenience to have the notary call an interpreter and all you have to do is pay the bill, it’s important to note that, as this case clearly shows, such convenience can quickly turn into inconvenience and costly problems that aren’t easy to solve. So this dispute shows how problems can cause convenience to be very expensive — and no damages for this client.

It further shows that convenience is expensive because in this arrangement the client was confronted with a single price that the notary gave him, thus losing the advantage of optionality by personally requesting multiple proposals. Keep in mind that the notary isn’t responsible for the interpreter’s services and fees, so if there’s any problem, you’re on the losing end, whereas the notary doesn’t have any responsibility at all for his involvement. In a way that’s why the commission thought the notary was “very obliging” because he didn’t have to be helpful. So if you’re responsible anyhow, you’re the one who should decide on everything that you’re responsible for in terms of understanding the language and translation. If you’re the one who’s paying, you’re better positioned to request proposals, choose and engage your own interpreter. What’s more, if you’re the one who chooses and engages, you have more control over the services and have less risk of this type of problems.

Another important point is that the interpreter’s service includes preparation before execution and the transportation to and from the notary’s office. This detail should help you in being well-informed before engaging or allowing someone else to engage an interpreter or translator for you for any formality.

At Plus Ultra we don’t share the commission’s opinion because we don’t think the notary was “very obliging” in reimbursing EUR 235.95 in interpreting fees. First, the client had paid everything in advance. Accordingly, when the notary cancelled the service, his argument was that the EUR 235.95 did not include the interpreter’s preparation and transportation. However, if that wasn’t included then this case is insufficiently clear to call the notary “very obliging.” Further, this begs the question what the total price was going to be upon completion of the service that is, EUR 235.95, plus the preparation money, plus transportation money. For these reasons, Plus Ultra doesn’t believe that the notary was “very obliging” in reimbursing the money, it was simply the right thing to do.

Always check Plus Ultra Legal and Language Tips to prevent any issues and to be well-informed before engaging any notary in the Netherlands. If you’d like to receive the assistance of experts in translations at notary’s offices and related matters, don’t hesitate to contact Plus Ultra.