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. The European Fund Recovery Initiative (EFRI), representing more than 600 victims of financial fraud, has raised serious concerns about the firm’s adherence to professional conduct rule
On 24 April 2025, EFRI formally engaged BarentsKrans to file a Statement of Grounds for Appeal against Payvision, a Dutch subsidiary of ING Bank. A fixed fee of EUR 30.000 (net) was agreed and paid on within a few days.
Despite having received the full case file on 21 March 2025, and no request for further documentation until weeks later, 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 questions:
- About a previously undisclosed conflict of interest involving a BarentsKrans partner’s prior work for Payvision/ING, and the fact that Mr. Schonewille’s office contacted Payvision to seek permission to accept the mandate—without informing EFRI.
- After EFRI raised serious concerns about the constantly shifting deadlines and the lack of deliverables under Mr. Schonewille’s lead, the responsible partner at BarentsKrans abruptly terminated the mandate.
No draft was delivered. No handover took place. No roadmap was ever provided.
Potential Violations of Dutch Legal Ethics Rules (Gedragsregels NOvA)
EFRI believes that BarentsKrans may have violated several key professional rules under the Dutch Bar Association (NOvA) framework:
- 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 not disclosed to EFRI. One of BarentsKrans’ partners 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.
BarentsKrans failed to fully disclose a conflict of interest involving partner Arno Voerman’s prior work for Payvision/ING, did not transparently inform EFRI about the nature of this conflict, and sought the opposing party’s consent without EFRI’s knowledge, violating the Dutch Bar’s rules on transparency, client information, and conflict of interest management.
- Failure of Loyal Representation
William Schonewille terminated the mandate without prior warning with EFRI immediately after EFRI raised concerns about his mismanagement of the case and the belated disclosure of a conflict of interest. He attempted to shift blame to EFRI by citing a supposed systemic lack of documentation—without having previously requested specific documentation. This conduct raises serious concerns under the Dutch Bar’s rules regarding transparency, conflict of interest management, and the duty to safeguard client interests, particularly in time-sensitive proceedings.
- Inadequate Communication
Between April 24 and May 15, BarentsKrans repeatedly shifted timelines based on issues raised for the first time on May 6—despite having received the full case file on March 21 and no factual developments having occurred in the interim. This pattern of inconsistent communication was followed by a period of silence, and ultimately, a unilateral withdrawal from the mandate.
- Questionable Settlement Approach
EFRI paid the fixed fee agreed on within days after 24 April 2025.
On 21 May in the mornin, the management of BarentsKrans informed us that they share Schonewille´s approach that the fixed fee should not be reimbursed. However, they promised that Schonewille will send an invoice for the time spent as soon as possible and return the unspent part of the fixed fee (if any). To date, nothing has been received.
On 21 May 2025 in the evening, BarentsKrans offered to refund 50% of the paid fee, only if EFRI deleted all public content and waived any claims. BarentsKrans has since referred EFRI bluntly to the courts if it wishes to pursue the matter.
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.
