Interview: In conversation with Chris van Dijk (Founding partner) and Lisa Godwaldt

In 1990, Chris van Dijk began his legal career as a lawyer. Before that, after completing his law studies, he followed the training to become a judge. This was a very broad training in which many fields of law were reviewed. Participants worked at a court for two years, learning to write judgments; then they worked as a public prosecutor for two years and finally there was a two-year internship. Chris did that last internship at a law firm.

At the time when Chris was asked to state his preference as to where he wanted to be placed as a judge, in 1992, his career took another 'sparkling' twist.

In Café Dantzig, with Eberhard van der Laan and two other young entrepreneurial lawyers, the plan to set up their own firm was born. That plan eventually came to fruition together with three more associates and the computer law team from the law firm where Chris was working at the time. The new office of the eventually 11 young lawyers was named after Marian Kennedy, part of that computer law team, and Eberhard van der Laan: Kennedy Van der Laan was a fact.

Chris has never regretted the decision not to become a judge in the end. 'As a lawyer, you speak to clients in a casual way,' he points out. 'You map out the strategy together with them and stand beside them. Not only in a specific case but you also want to be a sparring partner on topics that matter strategically.'

'A judge is independent and should, on the contrary, keep his distance from parties and companies. Moreover, he has no insight into what happens out of court. He has no insight into the advisory practice and the many cases that are settled out of court, fortunately. Litigation is expensive, often takes too long and the outcome is often uncertain.' Chris has, however, been a long-time deputy counsel at a court. He hopes it adds something to the stature of the office. Chris always happily goes to hearings with thick files and has nothing to do with bureaucracy. He says he learns a lot by looking at a case and parties from a judge's eye.

When setting up the firm, Chris and his associates felt that things had to be different from the big firms. 'We wanted to be top-3 in all areas of law. Money should not guide our actions and the atmosphere had to be more informal. Moreover, as a law firm, you also have a role to play in the social domain.' These values were cast in an office constitution: good, fun, commercial and not anti-social. The constitution is still relevant today: 'The values in it are an important reason why people want to work with us.'

Lisa asks whether working methods within the legal profession have changed from the past. Chris explains that they were the first with a kind of intranet in 1992, to share documents internally. In '95, Chris wrote a booklet on computer crime, in which he was still talking about the cart trail of the internet. That has changed, of course. But what has mostly changed within the legal profession is the speed at which things have to be done. 'Clients now expect immediate action. That's fine, but if that comes at the expense of quality, you sometimes have to slow them down for their own good. You do have more search systems now, so it is easier to retrieve your legal knowledge. However, because you search more specifically for a certain search term, it is essential that you continue to see the bigger picture. For that, I think it is still necessary to take in legal specialist literature, not just on your own specialism.'

Chris used to take law books with him on holiday. Lisa remembers that when she had just started, Chris shared a photo from a holiday address with Text and Commentary books piled up on those very thin beds you have in Japan. 'Fortunately, it soon became clear that it was only Chris who did that'. Other colleagues read the professional literature at other times, outside of holidays.

On the question of whether you should now have more of a presence in the boardroom, as far as Chris is concerned, it's about wanting to make an impact. For strategic business decisions, it is important to be at that level. When he was still doing IT law and chairman of the Association of IT Law, he had a lot of contact with the highest echelons in companies.

In his current specialism - liability law - this is much less so. At large insurers, most decisions on claims cases do not reach the boardroom. 'I don't have much with rank and file,' Chris points out. 'What matters to me is that you can make a difference. You can certainly do that also outside of the boardroom.'

On impact making, Chris cites a 2007 article. Based on a German thesis from 2004, Chris wrote an argument in the 'Juristenblad' about the possibility of a climate case against the state. In 2013, he was involved in the background as an advisor to 'Urgenda'. It was a privilege to be involved and to work with lawyers Koos van den Berg and Roger Cox. 'When we won the case and the state was forced to take more measures to combat climate change, it felt like a victory.'

Now there is the Bonaire case versus the state, in which Kennedy Van der Laan is assisting Greenpeace and Bonaireans. Again, Chris supports fellow lawyers because he feels we really have something to say. If you take the experts seriously, it becomes not a little disastrous but very disastrous. 'You can't then say: that's for future generations, can you?' Chris is well versed in the subject. The Netherlands is known as one of the most threatened areas when it comes to sea level rise.

Asked whether the state is then the most appropriate party to act here, Chris says: 'I think so. The state can regulate, it can intervene and oversee the whole spectrum. Business can do that much less. That does not alter the fact that big polluters also have a role to play'. Following the Urgenda case, the state has certainly done something, but too little according to Chris.

'You don't have to solve the problem as a state,' Chris points out, 'but do your own part'. The cranky thing is, Chris raises, 'Had you started 40 years ago, there wouldn't have been such a big problem and you could still have solved it quite easily.'

When Chris looks back on his career, there are things that touch him. We always want to win a case, but some more than others. He has been involved in many publicity-sensitive cases. That energy released when acting for a client in litigation and the will to win is also the essential difference between a lawyer and a judge. A judge does not - and should not - care which side the dime falls to. He must be impartial. Chris indicates that he himself often plays a kind of judge in cases; 'you make an assessment and give direction accordingly'. He thinks he has the advantage in this respect of being a deputy counsel.

Networking is incredibly important in the legal profession. It is 'human trafficking' after all. 'Besides that: you have to move,' Chris wants to pass on to Lisa. 'You can't sit still and wait.' A funny metaphor when you consider that at 63, Chris is still running marathons - he has already done 95. He also hopes that, as a lawyer, you are driven and interested in the subject. You have to empathise with the thought processes of your client and the opposing party, especially if you are litigating. What moves the opponent? And what do judges need for a judgment?

There is too little attention to the psychological dimensions of the profession in studies and training, according to Chris. He cites Kahneman, 'Thinking, Fast and Slow' as compulsory reading. 'When negotiating, it helps enormously when you know whether someone is risk-averse. And how you come across is incredibly important for a decision. The job of lawyers is to persuade. It is strange that there is not more focus on how to do that. This is not just about the substance. And remember, deciding is by no means always rational, but also intuitive.'

'The world is changing and everyone needs to be aware of that. And beyond that, the profession is just about sweating and being curious in every field. Keep learning and don't close your eyes to what might happen in the future in terms of the climate, artificial intelligence, etc.' Chris adds: 'If you would want to be remembered after you die, you would rather be remembered because you knew something and about what you did, not because you drove a big car.'