In a society where laws and regulations are becoming increasingly complex, it is essential that everybody has access to legal advice. However, in practice, many people do not know when they can consult a notary or even that they are entitled to do so. A properly functioning notaryship contributes to legal certainty, not only for wealthy individuals but also for those with less money to spend.
The Dutch State Secretary for Legal Protection recently responded to a report on the accessibility of notaries for individuals with limited financial means. According to the State Secretary, there is a political and social desire to do something to improve access to notaries for such people. He therefore wants to further investigate the possibilities of strengthening access to notarial services within, or with some adjustments to, the current legal framework in the Netherlands. He mainly wants to examine whether, on the one hand, customisation can be applied when imposing the amount of the personal contribution of less affluent clients and, on the other hand, whether supporting measures may also be applied when drawing up certain essential notarial deeds, such as a living will (also known as an enduring power of attorney), and certain advisory services provided by notaries. The inquirer will then always owe a personal contribution to the notary.
In order to compensate notaries for the costs of the service, the State Secretary, together with the Royal Dutch Association of Civil Law Notaries (in Dutch: “Koninklijke Notariële Beroepsorganisatie” or “KNB”), wants to examine whether the notary’s remuneration can be supplemented from a fund. The State Secretary is initially considering the KNB’s existing quality fund for this purpose. The State Secretary emphasises that this is not a variant in which all of the applicable fees are to be paid by the quality fund.
Recently, the Dutch House of Representatives approved two motions relating to the notarial profession in response to the aforementioned report on the accessibility of notaries.
One motion requests the government to consult with the KNB to see whether a trial with a social notarial profession can be carried out in one or more places in the Netherlands.
The other motion concerns a request to the Dutch government to investigate how a legal basis can be created for the sharing of information between notaries under strict conditions. Attention was also drawn to the problem that less affluent clients may endeavour to be assisted by one notary after being refused service by another notary (“notary hopping”). This possibility undermines the effectiveness of the Dutch notary’s legal gatekeeper function. The KNB has therefore advocated a warning system that allows notaries to share information about refused clients under strict conditions.
By Joep Ertem, Westvaer Notarissen, Rotterdam (Netherlands)
