Unusefull try to justify yourself. I am not interested what collaborators or clients write "good things" for this Avocaten Kantoor. Everybody has his own case and has used different avocats. But my own experience has to do with Mr. De Haan. What ever mr. De Haan says here below is only a try to justify himself but he knows very well that he treated my case in complete desinterest and without studying it in deep.. I had to write him pages of tips and evidenties to follow because he never studied them (I have his written proof for whom needs evidence on this fact). Was eveb shocking the fact as he told me once that he didn;t say to the court what I had asked him to say because, he told me, he didn;t want to ridiculise himself!!!. Incedible arrogance! I have even used and paid 2 other advocats to study the case and give me a second opinion about the way Mr. De Haan treatted and defended me. Both were negative and affirmative that mr De Haan's way of acting was not the good one, not efficient and noot successful. He could had made it much better. He didn;t even interfear in interviewing the other testimonies in the correct moments. He missed lot opportunities to defend me correctly and did lot of errors during his "defending". Only the fact that he proposed, nota bene, to offer as presence my own testimony (the worker of my roof) to the other party it was a really fatal error and decisive for the failure of the case. An irreversible failure of the case, Thus I changed Advocat but because the initial way of treating the case was wrong, the second advocat he could do nothing successful anymore. He would had liked, he tolf me, to ask lot of things to the testimonies but this, at that moment, was not any more possible. It was to late to do so for thse sittings, It should be done during the sittings of Mr. De Haan who missed in doing it.. Mr. De Haan did already big mistakes and a fatal case out of my case and this blocked other Avocats in defending me correctly anymore. Judge was already infulenced negatively. I lost the case with no one possitive point and the price to pay was very high. Finally I must say, Mr. De Haan knew from the beginning that I was not aware of the state of the roof that is why he gave me a 80% for winning the case. In other words, he has been an uncapable avocat for my case and this is proven be other of his collegues, whom I hired to get a second opinion. I do not reccomend him, At least for my case he took it very easy and didn't give the correct importance and weight.