Access to justice has been under pressure in the Netherlands for some time. In everyday practice, it becomes visible what figures only partially show: citizens with complex legal problems do not find affordable and expert support in a timely manner. The demand for substantive legal aid is growing, while the system of subsidised legal aid only reaches a limited proportion of legal seekers.
Under the Legal Aid Act, only lawyers – and in specific cases mediators – can claim public funding. That system is historically explainable. The profession of lawyer has a protected title, compulsory professional training, disciplinary law and supervision by the Dutch Bar Association and the Council for Legal Aid.
However, the 2026 practice is broader.
Specialized legal practices now deal with structurally complex matters within administrative law, immigration law, employment law and civil law, among others. They conduct opposition and appeal proceedings, draw up procedural documents, assist clients at hearings and contribute to substantive legal development. The quality of this work is in many cases equivalent to that of traditional social advocacy. Nevertheless, there is no structural possibility-where social need is evident-to call on public funds.
This creates a tension between the system and reality.
Three formal pathways with the ministry
HBM Juristen has not only raised this issue publicly, but also brought it directly to the attention of the Ministry of Justice and security.
In the past period, three formal correspondence and consultation processes have taken place:
- A first substantive exchange of letters on the exclusive access of lawyers to subsidized legal aid, in which it was advocated to put quality criteria at the center instead of exclusively title-based access.
- A follow-up reaction in which it was specifically proposed to investigate whether certified lawyers can operate under strict quality conditions within the existing system.
- A further written exchange following the response of the ministry, which stressed that the social need for affordable legal assistance is structurally greater than the current system can support.
In the reply, the ministry confirmed that access to law has continued attention and that alternative forms of organization within the legal sector are being investigated. At the same time, it has been indicated that it would go too far to bring the entire group of lawyers under a new legal framework.
That reaction deserves respect, but also calls for further deepening. After all, the debate is not a fundamental professional debate, but a systemic issue.
The core: effective access to justice
Article 6 ECHR obliges states to provide effective access to justice. That obligation does not refer exclusively to the existence of procedures, but to effective accessibility of legal assistance when necessary for a fair trial. The European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly emphasized that legal protection must be practical and real.
When citizens do not receive an addition, but also cannot bear commercial tariffs, a gray area arises in which legal protection becomes virtually unattainable. It is precisely in that area that specialized legal practices operate, often at greatly reduced rates or with considerable unpaid commitment.
This model is socially involved, but economically vulnerable.
A constructive solution direction
HBM Lawyers does not advocate dismantling the existing system. On the contrary. The plea focuses on strengthening.
A future-proof model could provide:
- objective training and experience standards for specialized lawyers;
- mandatory continuing education;
- professional liability insurance;
- independent complaint and oversight structure;
- periodic quality control;
- a clearly defined scope of issues.
Such an approach shifts the focus from title to demonstrable quality. This strengthens the rule of law without dismantling the existing system.
