Joint Court does not object to Merx's admittance to the Bar

May 26, 2010 6:02 AM

PHILISBURG--The Joint Court of the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba rejected the Prosecutor's Office appeal Tuesday against former prosecutor Cor Merx's admittance to the Bar.

The Prosecutor's Office had requested the Court during the May 4 appeal hearing, during which Merx had defended himself, to revoke the Joint Court's decision of November 11, 2009 to allow him to practise as a lawyer.

The Joint Court of the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba convicted Merx of forgery in November 2006. For these crimes he was given a suspended prison sentence of one year with two years' probation. He was also banned from any job in the Prosecutor's Office for five years.

After his conviction, Merx lived in the Netherlands for a while. On his return to St. Maarten, he started working as a legal advisor. Merx first requested admittance to the Bar in January 2007, but the Joint Court turned that request down. In February 2009, he filed a second petition, which met a better fate.

According to the Prosecutor's Office, the Joint Court should have rejected Merx's request because he had not informed the Court about certain incidents during his stint as a legal advisor in St. Maarten.

Solicitor General Anton van der Schans had cited that on the Website of Cor Merx Legal Services he had wrongfully and misleadingly stated that he was already a lawyer, as well as "objectionable practices" with a US $50,000 advance from a client.

According to the Prosecutor's Office, Merx should not have remained silent about these "incidents." In doing so he had given false information when stating that he had been working "confirming the order and honour of lawyers," it was the Prosecutor's Office's opinion.

According to the Court of Appeal, the November 2009 decision could not be easily revoked, seeing that following that decision, Merx had been sworn in as a lawyer. Since December 2009, Merx has been working as a lawyer, representing clients in court.

Revoking this decision could lead to "complicated questions," concerning Merx's right to represent his clients in court, and the consequences of his acts on their behalf. This could jeopardize "legal certainty" and judicial matters in general, it was stated in the Joint Court's verdict.

According to the Joint Court, it was possible under a Federal Ordinance to have lawyers dismissed from the Bar in case their admittance proved to be illegal.

In this case, the Joint Court found there were insufficient grounds to consider Merx's acts to be against the law. It therefore declared the Prosecutor's Office's case against Merx inadmissible.

Concerning the allegation that Merx had posted misleading information on his Website, the Court stated that the mere fact that Merx had not removed the word "lawyer" from the general conditions section, after the Dean of the St. Maarten Bar Association had requested him to do such, was of "secondary interest."

The issue concerning the advance was also not weighty enough to justify Merx's removal from the Bar, the Joint Court stated. According to Merx, the incident had been a "normal" dispute about an invoice, which had in the meantime been settled amiably.

(Source: Thde Daily Herald Sint Maarten)

25 May 2010