The following text reflects EFRI’s account of events and EFRI’s opinions based on the documentation available to us
Ethical Concerns Raised about BarentsKrans - EFRI's perspective.
BarentsKrans, one of the leading Dutch law firms, is facing growing criticism over its handling of the EFRI & Van Ruiten vs. Payvision / ING appeal case. EFRI, representing more than 600 victims of financial fraud, has raised serious concerns about the firm’s handling of its professional obligations in this specific mandate.
On 24 April 2025, EFRI formally engaged BarentsKrans to file a Statement of Grounds for Appeal against Payvision B.V., a Dutch subsidiary of ING Bank N.V.. A fixed fee of EUR 30.000 (net) was agreed and paid within a few days.
According to our records, BarentsKrans had received the full case file on 21 March 2025, and there was no request for further documentation until weeks later. Nevertheless, BarentsKrans unilaterally terminated the mandate on 15 May 2025 – just five days before the court filing deadline on 20 May 2025
Critically, this termination came only after EFRI raised serious concerns:
- About a previously undisclosed conflict of interest involving a BarentsKrans partner’s prior work for Payvision/ING, and the fact that William Schonewille’s office contacted Payvision to seek permission to accept the mandate, without informing EFRI.
- about the constantly shifting deadlines and the lack of deliverables under Mr Schonewille’s lead.
No draft was delivered to us. No handover was provided to us. No roadmap was ever shared with us that would have allowed another law firm to step in quickly.
Potential Violations of Dutch Legal Ethics Rules (Gedragsregels NOvA)
EFRI believes that BarentsKrans’ conduct in this mandate may raise serious questions under several key professional rules of the Dutch Bar Association (NOvA):
- Undisclosed Conflict of Interest (Independence, Partiality, Commission NOvA)
On 18 March 2025, before accepting the mandate, BarentsKrans contacted Payvision to request permission to act against them – a fact that, according to our understanding, was not disclosed to EFRI at that time. One of BarentsKrans’ partners, Arno Voerman, had previously represented Payvision/ING. EFRI only learned of this on 8 May when Payvision rejected postponing the deadline for the filing of the appeal.
From EFRI’s perspective, BarentsKrans did not sufficiently or promptly disclose this conflict-of-interest situation involving partner Arno Voerman’s prior work for Payvision/ING and did not transparently inform EFRI about the nature of this conflict or about the approach to the opposing party. In our view, this raises concerns under the Dutch Bar’s rules on transparency, client information, and conflict-of-interest management and may not be in line with those standards.
We recognise that it is for the competent disciplinary authorities to determine whether any formal violation of the rules has occurred. Our concern here is to document why we regard the situation as problematic.
- Failure of Loyal Representation
From EFRI’s point of view, William Schonewille terminated the mandate without prior warning and immediately after EFRI raised concerns about his handling of the case and the late disclosure of a conflict-of-interest situation. In his communication, he attempted to attribute the situation to an alleged systemic lack of documentation on the side of EFRI and the victims, although, to our knowledge, no concrete, detailed request for specific documentation had been made earlier.
This conduct raises serious concerns for EFRI under the Dutch Bar’s rules regarding transparency, conflict-of-interest management, and the duty to safeguard client interests, particularly in time-sensitive proceedings. Whether these concerns amount to a breach of the formal rules is for the disciplinary bodies to decide; our assessment refers to our client experience in this case.
- Inadequate Communication
Between 24 April and 15 May, EFRI experienced the communication from BarentsKrans as inconsistent and confusing. Timelines were repeatedly shifted based on issues raised for the first time on 6 May – despite BarentsKrans having received the full case file on 21 March and no relevant factual developments having occurred in the interim.
This pattern of changing timelines was followed, from our perspective, by a period of silence and, ultimately, by a unilateral withdrawal from the mandate shortly before a critical court deadline. We regard this as inadequate communication and case handling in a time-critical appellate matter.
- Questionable Settlement Approach
EFRI paid the fixed fee agreed within days after 24 April 2025.
On 21 May in the morning, the management of BarentsKrans informed us that they shared Mr Schonewille’s approach that the fixed fee should not be reimbursed. At the same time, they stated that Mr Schonewille would send an invoice for the time spent as soon as possible and return the unspent part of the fixed fee (if any). To date, EFRI has not received such an invoice and no corresponding refund has been made.
On 21 May 2025 in the evening, BarentsKrans offered, according to our understanding of their proposal, to refund 50% of the paid fee, on the condition that EFRI deleted all public content relating to the matter and waived any claims. When EFRI did not accept these conditions, BarentsKrans referred us to the courts if we wished to pursue the matter.
From EFRI’s perspective, this sequence raises serious concerns about how financial matters and reputational considerations were handled in this mandate. According to our understanding, the Gedragsregels require Dutch lawyers to handle financial matters with integrity and care and to account accurately and transparently to their clients. Whether the concrete conduct of BarentsKrans complies with these standards will have to be assessed by the competent bodies; our concern is to document why we see a need for clarification.
According to the Gedragsregels, Dutch lawyers must also handle financial matters with integrity and care, and accurately account for these to their clients.
Why This Matters
BarentsKrans is not just any law firm — it is actively involved in WAMCA proceedings (Dutch collective redress cases), representing consumers. This makes the conduct observed in the EFRI case particularly concerning. If a firm that positions itself as a defender of collective consumer interests behaves in this manner — terminating a mandate five days before a deadline, failing to communicate key conflicts of interest, shifting deadlines, and withholding a transparent fee reconciliation — it raises serious questions about professional reliability and ethical consistency.
This is not merely a private fallout between BarentsKrans and EFRI. It highlights fundamental concerns about how law firms treat financially and emotionally vulnerable clients, particularly victims of online financial fraud who depend on trust and professional diligence.
Our case involves elderly fraud victims – some over 90 years old – relying on proper legal representation. These individuals had already fallen victim to scams orchestrated by criminal organizations, with the involvement of Dutch companies such as Payvision and ING.
BarentsKrans had a duty not just to perform, but to protect. Instead, they left victims without legal support at a critical moment, refused to provide refund transparency, and attempted to silence public accountability.
From EFRI’s perspective, BarentsKrans had a duty not just to perform, but to protect. Instead, in our experience, they left victims without legal support at a critical moment, did not provide the refund transparency we had expected, and made a partial refund conditional on the removal of public criticism and the waiver of claims. For EFRI, this raises serious ethical concerns, which is why we consider it important to make our experience public and to seek clarification through the appropriate channels.
