Three tough questions for Reinier Pijls

For our clients, we fight in court, at the cutting edge. A rock-hard facade, but behind it is a person of flesh and blood. A person whom we try to provoke a little with 3 candid questions. Let's see how Reinier Pijls (corporate law and insolvency law) does.

What do you think are the three most important laws?

"What I like best is legal relations between citizens. That affects everyone. Whether you buy a loaf of bread, book a vacation, take out a mortgage or go bankrupt. Most of our law involves civil law. You might not say so because criminal law gets the most attention in the media. However, criminal law is only a small part of our law, as is administrative law. Therefore, for me, the Civil Code is the most important. After that, I would say the Criminal Code. For my practice, bankruptcy law is the most important, so it should definitely not be missing either."

Which historical person would you have wanted to defend?

"That's a fun question! Difficult to choose... For example, I would have loved to assist Gerard Reve when he was charged with blasphemy. After all, I don't think that should have been punishable then either. But in that light, the trial of Socrates is actually even more interesting. Among other things, Socrates was accused of not honoring the proper gods. Socrates defended himself. He did so superbly that the jury, initially hostile to him, had no choice but to acquit him. He then botched it by demanding a reward instead of punishment. Finally, the trial ended with Socrates being sentenced to death. Although criminal law is not my specialty, I certainly would have settled it better for him."

Have you ever been in an ethical dilemma?

"Not really, because I don't handle criminal cases. However, it is true that even in my areas of expertise - corporate law and insolvency law - I sometimes find myself in difficult situations. That is the case when the other party leaves points unresolved. Suppose you are trying to collect a claim on behalf of your client that is now time-barred. Then the other party no longer has to pay that claim. However, he must then invoke the statute of limitations. If he does not, the claim will be awarded. Of course you do not point this out to the other party, because you are only looking after the interests of your client. Only if you can come up with a mutually beneficial solution and your client does not object, then you can point something out to an opposing party. Otherwise you shouldn't and shouldn't."