One cross-border legal practice

Peeters Law
Antwerp & Brussels

Peeters Law Antwerp Jos Smolderenstraat 65
BE-2000 Antwerp
+32 3 377 83 53
Peeters Law Brussels Avenue des Arts 44
BE-1040 Brussels
+32 2 884 74 74
I.

Karen-Anne Peeters

Founder of Peeters Law. Across the fields in which the firm practises, she combines legal analysis with a nuanced sensitivity to language, culture and strategic context, approaching each matter within the broader environment in which it arises and develops.

Academic Background and Professional Appointments

  • Degree in Law (“Licentiaat in de Rechten”), corresponding to the general Master's degree in Law level under the Bologna framework, Universiteit Antwerpen (2006)
  • Additional university training undertaken within the programme “Master in Spanish Law for Foreign Jurists”, Universidad de Alcalá (2010)
  • Graduate Degree in Commercial Sciences and Business Administration, Thomas More Hogeschool (formerly KH Mechelen) (1997)
  • French–Dutch Bilingualism Certificate, Chambre de Commerce et d’Industrie de Paris (1996)
  • Belgian Attorney at Law, registered with the Orde van Vlaamse Balies and the Ordre français des avocats du barreau de Bruxelles
  • Member of the Deutsch-Spanische Juristenvereinigung e.V.
  • Officially recognised representative of Vlamingen in de Wereld for Tenerife, recognised by the Belgian Embassy in Madrid and operating in cooperation with Belgian diplomatic and consular authorities

Professional experience

Before founding Peeters Law, she developed her professional experience within French-speaking, Spanish and British law firms. These firms continue, to this day, to form valuable bridges in cross-border matters. The experience refined her familiarity with diverse legal cultures, working methods and legal traditions, and strengthened her ability to navigate the subtleties of international legal practice across different jurisdictions and professional environments.

II.

Fields of Expertise

The firm's fields of practice form an interconnected architecture. Each domain is treated both as a distinct discipline and as a node within a broader, cross-border legal network. Select a field to read more.

Private international law, known in the Anglo-American tradition as the conflict of laws, does not constitute a separate substantive field of law, but rather an infrastructure of coordination. It cannot, however, be regarded as a merely facilitative framework: a substantial proportion of its rules apply on a mandatory basis, leaving only a circumscribed margin for party autonomy. Its function is to bring order to situations in which several legal systems intersect and in which distinct normative layers operate simultaneously. Where divergent jurisdictions and rules converge — whether between Belgium and Spain, between Germany and Portugal, between New York and Ontario, or between any State of the Union and a Member State of the European Union — private international law provides a structure that secures legal certainty while preserving space for strategic deliberation.

The Four Cardinal QuestionsThe systematic framework of private international law is determined by four cardinal questions. The first concerns jurisdiction, namely the identification of the authority competent to decide and the scope of the powers conferred upon it. The second concerns the applicable law, that is to say the normative framework which takes precedence in the legal assessment of the facts. The third concerns the recognition and enforcement of decisions, that is the manner in which a judgment transcends the territorial boundary of its origin. The fourth concerns the interpretation of foreign law, namely the manner in which external norms are translated and embedded within the receiving legal order — extending to the deeper task of conceptual translation between legal traditions which do not share a common vocabulary, and in which apparently equivalent terms — trust and fiducie, domicile and woonplaats, property and propriété — frequently denote materially different institutions.

Private international law is more than a body of conflict rules: it is a structuring mechanism by which disputes are prevented from disintegrating into fragmentation. It operates as the invisible architecture of interlegality: a silent structure which channels tensions, orders perspectives, and renders cooperation possible within a plurality of legal systems. For the European citizen whose life and assets extend beyond a single Member State, no less than for the North-American client whose situation extends across the Atlantic, an understanding of this architecture is not a matter of academic refinement but of practical necessity.

International succession law occupies the intersection of patrimony, culture and law. Where different legal systems converge upon a single estate, its administration calls not only for a command of the formal rules of each system concerned, but also for the capacity to coordinate those systems, to optimise the fiscal outcome, and to attend to the cultural sensitivities which inevitably accompany the transmission of wealth from one generation to the next.

The handling of international estates is structured by four dimensions: the drafting and interpretation of wills and other instruments of last will, including the choice of law under Article 22 of the Succession Regulation (EU) 650/2012; the coordination of succession law with the matrimonial property regime of the spouses; the strategies developed against double taxation; and the harmonisation of the fiscal and the civil-law frameworks, having regard to the national and regional particularities which, within federal States such as Belgium, Spain and Germany, give rise to substantial variation in the rules applicable to a single estate.

The reach of international succession law extends well beyond the European Union — to Switzerland, the United Kingdom, Norway and Iceland within Europe, and beyond Europe to the United States and Canada, to the codifications of Latin America with their institution of forced heirship (la legítima), and to Islamic legal systems which combine religious prescription with national legislation. International estates are never purely legal matters. They call for an equilibrium between patrimony, family interests and legal certainty, in which legal coordination, fiscal optimisation and cultural sensitivity are inextricably bound together.

Contract law cannot be reduced to a single normative layer. Contractual relationships unfold within a stratified framework in which several dimensions intersect: a territorial dimension (the conflict-of-laws rules on applicable law and choice of forum, under Rome I and Brussels Ia, and the choice-of-law analyses of the Restatement, the Civil Code of Québec and the common-law provinces); a doctrinal dimension (party autonomy, good faith — bonne foi, Treu und Glauben, buena fe — proportionality, and the prohibition of the abuse of rights); a cultural and linguistic dimension; a corrective dimension (transparency, proportionality, consumer protection); and a European and international dimension, including the CISG.

General terms and conditions embody the pre-contractual structuring of obligations, with validity and enforceability varying appreciably between business-to-business, business-to-consumer and digital contexts — the latter increasingly subject to the Digital Services Act and Digital Markets Act, and to the developing data- and consumer-protection regimes of the United States and Canada. Commercial freedom of contract operates within legal and economic constraints; consumer contracts are systematically circumscribed by a regime of mandatory protection; and online contracts give rise to questions of algorithmic contracting, cross-border enforceability and the validity of consent.

Core concepts — good faith, reasonableness, guarantee, warranty, condition, cause, consideration — require ongoing interpretive alignment across legal cultures. The civilian notion of cause has no exact common-law counterpart; the common-law doctrine of consideration finds no precise equivalent in continental codifications. The contract, in this view, is not merely an instrument of private autonomy, but also a locus of protection, of coordination and of cultural translation.

Liability law stands at the intersection of several normative layers. It encompasses contractual and non-contractual liability alike and is increasingly shaped by cross-border dimensions. Three principal categories form the foundation of the field: contractual liability, concerning the breach of obligations arising from agreement; non-contractual liability, addressing fault, damage and causal connection (délit and quasi-délit in the civilian tradition, tort in the common-law tradition); and cross-border liability, giving rise to questions of conflict of laws addressed by Rome II, Brussels Ia and the relevant Hague Conventions. A cross-border transaction may begin in contract, end in tort, and simultaneously raise questions of applicable law and of international enforcement.

Liability is not only a legal matter but an economically charged one. Divergent methods for the calculation of damages, varying litigation costs and territorially limited insurance coverage bear materially upon the parties — the differences being particularly marked between the European tradition, reserved as to punitive damages, and the United States tradition, in which punitive damages and the class action occupy a more prominent place. The digital transformation has rendered new questions pressing: the liability of online platforms, data breaches, artificial intelligence and smart contracts.

Liability law is not a closed system but a multilayered structure in which national traditions, European harmonisation and international coordination converge. It presents itself as a dynamic field of forces: territorially anchored, materially differentiated, culturally inflected and normatively corrected.

Social security, considered in its cross-border dimension, is a domain in which the law is in constant motion. It is here that mobility and solidarity encounter one another, often in a tension that is not easily resolved. The central question abides: how is social protection to be guaranteed where persons, undertakings and economic activities move across borders?

The field may be read across five layers: the territorial delimitation of competence (within the Union, Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 and its implementing Regulation; outside it, bilateral and totalisation agreements); the classification of employment relationships (employee or self-employed, on criteria that differ markedly between systems); the structuring of activities through contractual, corporate and fiscal arrangements; enforcement and risk analysis, by which abuse and bogus self-employment are prevented; and normative correction, where economic freedoms encounter the social fundamental rights.

Cross-border social security thus presents itself as a matrix of tensions and of convergences. No uniform model exists; there are, however, nodes of agreement, including the protection against abuse, the requirement of coherence and the enduring tension between mobility and solidarity. Legal analysis in this domain must anchor territorially, distinguish materially, think structurally, monitor procedurally and correct normatively.

International family law constitutes one of the most sensitive crossroads of the legal order. It touches upon families at moments of acute vulnerability: divorce, the division of assets, disputes concerning parental responsibility, the recognition of parenthood. Once these matters cross a frontier, the self-evident character of national law dissolves.

At the foundation of the field lie the national codifications. Above these rest the European load-bearing instruments — Regulation (EU) 2019/1111 (Brussels IIb), Regulations (EU) 2016/1103 and 2016/1104, and Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 on maintenance. The multilateral pillars of the Hague Conference complete the structure, and human rights instruments form the capstone: Article 8 ECHR, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and Articles 7 and 24 of the Charter. Considered together, these layers do not form a seamless cathedral but a mosaic: solid where rules converge, fragile where gaps emerge.

As Alfons Heyvaert observed, the legal order becomes truly visible only in its fault lines. International family law displays these fault lines with particular clarity. The field is at once an architecture and a chessboard, in which order and dynamics coexist, and it is further challenged by ongoing social change — donor conception and surrogacy, LGBTQI+ families, climate-driven migration. What endures is its foundation: human dignity, and in particular the protection of children, as an indispensable compass within a globalised legal order.

Real property law occupies the intersection of private-law structures of ownership, administrative regulation and international coordination. Ownership, lease and rights of use are never merely legal categories; they are embedded within broader social, economic and cultural contexts. Once real property transactions or disputes cross a frontier, a layered set of rules is set in motion.

The organisation of the common parts of a building reveals with particular clarity the divergences between legal systems — from the Belgian regime of apartment ownership under Book 3 of the Civil Code, to the Spanish propiedad horizontal, to the North-American condominium and homeowners' association. A Belgian heir who inherits an apartment in Málaga is required to enter a Spanish system of management and of contributions, the rules of which differ from those familiar to him or her. Alongside full ownership, the European systems recognise a substantial range of use rights — the long lease, the building right and usufruct — while in other legal families leasehold and building-right structures are the norm rather than the exception.

Real property is inseparable from spatial planning and public-law regulation, and the recognition and enforcement of foreign notarial deeds and judicial decisions is of central practical importance. The right of property is protected by the national constitutions and, at the European level, by Article 1 of the First Protocol ECHR and Article 17 of the Charter — though that protection is not absolute. Real property law in cross-border perspective is at once an architecture and a game: its true significance lies not in the management of bricks and land alone, but in the ordering of human relationships.

Company law constitutes something of a laboratory of layered legal phenomena: the substantive layer of company forms, articles of association and internal organisation; the territorial layer of applicable law and judicial competence; and the doctrinal layer of governing principles — the freedom of establishment, the protection of creditors and shareholders, proportionality and legal certainty. The interplay of these dimensions makes of company law a field which is, in its very nature, transboundary.

The national systems form the building blocks — the Belgian Code of Companies and Associations of 2019, the Spanish Ley de Sociedades de Capital, the German Aktiengesetz and GmbH-Gesetz, the French Code de commerce, Book 2 of the Dutch Civil Code — within a European framework drawn by Directives (EU) 2017/1132 and 2019/2121 and given shape by the Court of Justice (SEVIC, Cartesio, VALE, Polbud). Beyond Europe, distinct paradigms apply, with the State of Delaware occupying a position of particular dominance in the United States.

The layered character of the field becomes apparent across incorporation and amendment of articles, shareholder agreements and capital structures, corporate governance, directors' liability, mergers and reorganisations, and dissolution and winding up. Company law in a cross-border perspective is at once an architecture and an arena, in which territorial embedding, substantive design and doctrinal principle are continuously interwoven around a single underlying question: how is the freedom of enterprise to be reconciled with the protection of third parties?

Financial contracts may, on paper, appear to be no more than bundles of clauses. A closer reading reveals, however, that banking and financial law is the infrastructure upon which trust itself rests. Without confidence in the predictability of contracts and in the protection afforded by the law, credit and investment lose their meaning. Consumer protection, accordingly, is not an obstacle to the market: it is the condition of the market.

The game-theoretical analysis developed by Robert Cooter and Thomas Ulen has made plain that markets are not neutral arenas. The asymmetry between banks and consumers is structural rather than incidental. The law, however, rewrites the underlying payoff structure: duties of transparency, the ex officio examination of unfair terms, and a regime of penalties strengthened by the Omnibus Directive together alter the incentives of the market participants. The European internal market can function only on the condition that consumers in all Member States enjoy a minimum level of protection, anchored by Directive 93/13/EEC and complementary directives on consumer credit, mortgage credit, payment services (PSD2) and investment services (MiFID II, PRIIPs).

Supervision is, for the most part, organised at the national level, while financial products circulate across borders. This is the Heyvaertian fault line characteristic of the field. Financial and banking law thus presents itself as a multilayered structure in which contracts, conflict-of-laws rules and doctrinal corrections intersect — at once a chessboard, on which strategies are deployed, and a cathedral, in which the architecture of trust is patiently constructed.

Intellectual property law is at once an engine of innovation and a mirror in which the tensions of the market are reflected. It protects trade marks, designs and creative works, yet it also raises questions of a fundamental character: how far may exclusivity properly extend, at what point does protection pass over into monopolisation, and in what relation do intellectual rights stand to the free movement of goods and services, to competition law and to fundamental rights?

It is a multilayered architecture which extends from the national codifications and courts, through European harmonisation (the EU Trade Mark Regulation, the Community Design Regulation, the Information Society and Digital Single Market Directives) and supranational institutions, to international conventions — Paris, Berne, the Madrid and Hague Systems, the Patent Cooperation Treaty and TRIPS — and to the corresponding instruments of the United States and Canada. Although European harmonisation has made considerable progress, territorial fragmentation remains a feature of the field.

The protection of intellectual property cannot be considered in isolation from the other fundamental values of the legal order — the freedom of expression and the freedom to conduct a business correct it where necessary. Intellectual property law in a cross-border perspective is, at one and the same time, a cathedral and a chessboard: a cathedral of layers and a chessboard of moves. The structure is never fully completed; it is a living system, which seeks, in each generation, a renewed equilibrium between protection and freedom.

Legal Services for EU, NATO & SHAPE Personnel

A career in the service of European or Atlantic institutions is one of the most demanding and rewarding professional paths there is. It also comes with a distinctive set of legal complexities — ones that most lawyers, even experienced ones, are simply not equipped to navigate.

Peeters Law is different. With over two decades of cross-border practice across Belgian, Spanish, and other European jurisdictions, and with active working fluency in English, French, Dutch, German, Spanish, Catalan, and Portuguese, we understand the specific legal landscape that EU officials, NATO staff, and SHAPE personnel inhabit — and we know how to work within it effectively on your behalf.

Whether you are posted to Brussels for two years or have built a twenty-year career within the institutions, the legal questions that arise from international service deserve counsel that is genuinely international in scope — not advice retrofitted from a purely domestic practice.

Your Legal Situation Is Not Like Everyone Else's

As an EU or NATO official, you live under a particular legal regime that differs significantly from that of other residents of Belgium or the countries where you are posted. This creates specific advantages — and specific complications:

  • You are subject to the EU's internal tax regime, not Belgian income tax — but this affects how Belgian authorities and financial institutions assess your solvency, mortgage eligibility, and financial standing.
  • You enjoy certain privileges and immunities under the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the EU, or under the NATO Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) — but these have limits, and knowing exactly where those limits lie can be decisive.
  • Your family life may span multiple jurisdictions — a spouse from a non-EU country, children born under one legal system who now live under another, assets distributed across several countries.
  • You may own or wish to acquire property in Belgium, in your country of origin, or in another EU member state — each with its own registration regime, tax implications, and inheritance rules.
  • Your career transitions — postings, reassignments, retirement, departure from the institutions — generate legal questions that require timely and accurate answers.

Areas of Practice

International Family LawSeparation, divorce, and parental arrangements when spouses hold different nationalities, when children have grown up across borders, or when custody disputes involve courts in multiple jurisdictions. We are experienced in applying EU Regulation Brussels IIb and the Hague Convention on International Child Abduction, and in navigating cases that span Belgium, Spain, France, Germany, and beyond.

Cross-Border Property & Real EstateAcquisition, sale, and legal due diligence on properties in Belgium, Spain, and other European jurisdictions. Particular expertise in Spanish real estate, including registration procedures, urban planning compliance, inheritance registration, and disputes arising from concealed defects or non-disclosed encumbrances. We also advise on the practical implications of your EU tax status for mortgage applications and property financing in Belgium.

International Inheritance & Estate PlanningEstates involving assets, heirs, or domicile in multiple countries require careful application of EU Succession Regulation No. 650/2012 and the private international law of each relevant jurisdiction. We advise on estate planning before death and on the administration and recovery of cross-border estates after it.

Privileges, Immunities & Status IssuesAdvice on the scope and limits of privileges and immunities under the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the EU, the NATO SOFA, and relevant bilateral agreements, including the interface between your institutional status and Belgian civil, administrative, and contractual law.

EU Regulatory & Financial MattersAdvice on EU banking regulation, financial compliance, and investment matters — including cross-border investment disputes, UBO registration requirements, and global offshore issues. Our network of tax professionals allows us to ensure comprehensive coverage of your financial legal needs.

Career Transitions & End-of-Service MattersWe advise on the consequences for your Belgian residency status, your property holdings, your pension entitlements, and any pending contractual or family law matters that the transition may affect.

Why Peeters Law

We are not a large firm. We are not a factory. Every client at Peeters Law has direct access to Karen-Anne Peeters — a lawyer with over twenty years of experience in international and cross-border legal practice, five years of professional life in Spain, and a genuine command of seven European languages. We have a wide network of foreign lawyers in many jurisdictions.

We apply what we call the Penteract Methodology — a seven-layer analytical framework developed over years of complex cross-border work — to ensure that no dimension of your legal situation is overlooked. International cases rarely have simple answers, and we do not pretend otherwise. What we offer is rigorous, transparent, and genuinely tailored analysis. We are available for consultations in person in Antwerp and Brussels, as well as online — in whichever of our working languages is most comfortable for you. We work with transparency on fees and process. You will always know where your matter stands.

Working Languages

  • English
  • French
  • Dutch
  • German
  • Spanish
  • Portuguese
  • Italian

Also: Catalan (working knowledge). Norwegian, Swedish, and Arabic (basic professional knowledge).

Make an appointment

Consultations are available in Antwerp, Brussels, or online — according to your availability.

You can make an appointment via info@peeterslaw.com

Make an appointment

Residency Options in Belgium, Spain & Portugal for US Citizens & Canadians

Peeters Law — Cross-Border Private International Law and Multijurisdictional Structuring. North-American Citizens Relocating to the European Union.

Citizens of the United States and Canada contemplating long-term residence within the European Union must navigate a plurality of national immigration regimes, each of which operates within the broader framework of Union free movement law and the conflict-of-laws rules of private international law. The granting of visas and residence permits remains the exclusive competence of the national immigration authorities and of counsel admitted to practice before them.

Within these limits, Peeters Law is in a position to assist clients in the visa and residence-permit context, albeit in a circumscribed and indirect manner. The firm does not itself conduct the procedural representation before the immigration authorities. It does, however, contribute to the preparation of such proceedings through the legal analysis of the client's overall situation, the assessment of the available residence routes, the structuring of the underlying private-law arrangements, and, where appropriate, the coordination of the file with a trusted confrère specialised in immigration law. This division of competences ensures that each phase of the relocation is addressed by the practitioner most appropriately qualified for it.

The Penteract Methodology

Central to the firm's approach is the Penteract Methodology, an analytical framework developed for the systematic examination of complex transboundary legal questions. The methodology is designated by reference to the penteract, being the five-dimensional analogue of the tesseract, and proceeds from the premise that legal problems of an international character cannot adequately be resolved as isolated issues within a single national legal order, but require coordinated examination across five interdependent dimensions: the territorial, the substantive, the linguistic and cultural, the normative and the strategic.

Where the complexity of the matter so requires, the analysis may be extended by a sixth structural layer and by a seventh reflexive layer comprising a critical review of the analytical process itself. The methodology is formally denoted as P(T, M, N, C, S). It is offered as one analytical tool among others, and not as a substitute for the substantive rules of the legal orders concerned.

The exposition that follows reflects the principal long-stay residence routes available in Belgium, Spain and Portugal as of April 2026. The financial thresholds set out below are based on the most recent official indices known to the firm at the time of writing and remain subject to annual revision. They are provided for general orientation; verification in the individual case is indispensable.

Belgium

Non-EU and non-EEA nationals seeking residence in Belgium for a period exceeding ninety days are, as a rule, required to obtain a national long-stay visa (Type D) prior to entry, followed by registration in the population register of the competent municipality. The principal residence categories include employment-based authorisation under the Single Permit procedure; self-employment under the Professional Card regime; business establishment and corporate residence routes; residence on the basis of sufficient personal financial means; and residence on grounds of family reunification or for academic and research purposes.

Peeters Law assists in the structuring of Belgian corporate vehicles, the analysis of directors' liability, the coordination of cross-border taxation and the resolution of applicable-law questions under the Belgian Code of Private International Law of 16 July 2004.

Spain

Following the abolition of the investor residence regime under Law 14/2013 (the former Golden Visa programme), with effect from 3 April 2025, the principal long-stay options available to non-EU nationals are the Digital Nomad Visa (visado de nómada digital) and the Non-Lucrative Visa (visado de residencia no lucrativa).

The Digital Nomad Visa is designed for remote workers employed by, or contracting with, entities established outside Spain. The principal applicant must, in principle, demonstrate stable gross monthly income equivalent to at least 200 percent of the national minimum interprofessional wage (SMI), a threshold which, as of 2026, stands at approximately 2,850 euro per month. The Non-Lucrative Visa is intended for financially independent persons who do not intend to pursue gainful activity within Spain, and requires resources corresponding to 400 percent of the Public Multiple Effects Income Indicator (IPREM), approximately 28,800 euro per annum, supplemented by 100 percent of IPREM (7,200 euro per annum) for each accompanying family member.

Peeters Law has developed particular experience in Spanish real-property law, including propiedad horizontal, usufruct and the lease regime under the Ley de Arrendamientos Urbanos; in succession law, including the rules of forced heirship (la legítima); in international family law; and in the coordination of social security regimes.

Portugal

Portugal offers a number of residence pathways for non-EU nationals. The Golden Visa (Autorização de Residência para Investimento) programme remains in force, although the real-estate investment route has been discontinued. The qualifying investment options presently comprise a contribution of 500,000 euro to approved regulated investment funds, with at least 60 percent allocated to Portuguese entities, as well as cultural or scientific contributions and job-creating business investments. Complementary routes include the D7 Visa, for recipients of passive income (a minimum of approximately 920 euro per month for the principal applicant in 2026), and the Digital Nomad Visa.

Physical presence requirements vary considerably between the available routes. Following five years of lawful residence, eligible holders may, subject to the applicable conditions, apply for permanent residence and, in due course, for Portuguese citizenship. Peeters Law assists clients in the cross-border coordination of Portuguese assets alongside Belgian or Spanish holdings, with particular regard to succession planning and to the avoidance of double taxation.

Next Steps. Prospective clients are invited to arrange a confidential initial consultation. Consultations are conducted in English, Spanish, Dutch, French or German, and may be held in person or by remote means.

Contact: info@peeterslaw.com · +32 3 377 83 53 · Jos Smolderenstraat 65, 2000 Antwerp, Belgium

III.

Legal Ethics

Legal ethics form the foundation of the legal profession. They guide the relationship between lawyer and client and anchor it in trust, honesty and diligence. The rules laid down in the Code of Professional Conduct for Lawyers carry a dual significance: for the client, a guarantee of protection and reliability; for the rule of law, structural conditions that ensure the legal profession can function as a free and credible pillar of justice.

Confidentiality

Everything that a lawyer learns in the course of practising their profession is subject to a strict duty of confidentiality. The Court of Cassation regards this professional secrecy as a norm of public order; the European Court of Human Rights sees it as an essential component of a fair trial. Without confidentiality, a client cannot freely approach their counsel. The core remains absolute: communications in the context of defence are protected without exception, as confirmed in Michaud v. France (2012). For the client, confidentiality creates a space where everything can be discussed freely; for the rule of law, it ensures that access to justice can truly function.

Independence

A lawyer practises their profession in full independence and may not allow themselves to be influenced by external pressure or self-interest. Recognised in international principles (UN, CCBE), independence ensures that lawyers act solely in the service of the law and the interests of their client. It also means that the lawyer is free to act against any opposing party, however influential or institutional. For the client, this means the assurance of a free and unbiased defence; for the rule of law, it guarantees that power is kept in balance and that no one stands above the law.

Integrity

A lawyer is obliged to act with honesty and integrity, across a range of domains from fee arrangements to the handling of third-party funds and collegial cooperation. The Court of Cassation confirmed that breach of transparency obligations may give rise to liability. For the client, this means being able to rely on correctness and honesty at every stage of the collaboration; for the rule of law, integrity ensures that justice is upheld by a credible profession that deserves trust.

Undivided loyalty

A lawyer must represent the interests of the client exclusively. Conflicts of interest are prohibited, except in exceptional cases with informed consent. This principle — nemo potest esse simul actor et defensor — is today absolutely enshrined in the Code and the European rules of conduct (CCBE). For the client, this means that their interests always come first, without divided loyalties; for the rule of law, this ensures that the law is not merely formal but actually functions through effective defence.

Communication and transparency

A lawyer must inform their client clearly and in a timely manner, both about the progress of the case and about its financial aspects. Reinforced by the Code of Economic Law and confirmed by the Court of Cassation, transparency corrects the asymmetry between lawyer and client. A signed agreement plays a central role: it makes arrangements tangible and prevents ambiguity arising at a later stage.

Competence and assistance

A lawyer is obliged to continually update their knowledge and provide quality assistance at every stage of the case. Today, competence means more than knowledge of the statute book: current insights into international and compliance rules are also part of it. For the client, this means access to current and high-quality legal assistance; for the rule of law, that the application of law is not only theoretical, but also practically effective.

The role of the engagement agreement

The engagement agreement occupies a special place in the relationship between lawyer and client. It is not merely a formal document, but an instrument that anchors trust and clarity. Arrangements regarding costs, fees and the manner of service delivery can be recorded prior to the handling of the case, but may also be specified or confirmed in the course of the proceedings. This agreement binds both parties and gives concrete form to trust, balance and legal certainty.

Schedule a Consultation Today

If you need legal advice or representation for your business, we are here to help. Contact us today to schedule a consultation with one of our experienced attorneys.

Schedule Now
IV.

Offices

Our Antwerp office is situated just a few steps from the Palace of Justice, in the newly developed district of Nieuw-Zuid. PEETERS LAW is also present in Brussels, on Avenue des Arts, at the heart of the European and international quarter.

Antwerp & Brussels. Belgian roots. European perspective. Two places. Two rhythms within the same legal order.

Antwerp looks out towards the Scheldt and the docks, towards ships, trade and departure. Brussels lives within the quiet murmur of languages, institutions and intersecting diplomacies. A city where Europe is shaped each day through negotiation, balance and movement.

Two cities which remind us, each in their own way, that the law is never still. That it moves constantly between people, borders, cultures and human stories. Whoever approaches the Palace of Justice sees the city opening itself towards the river, and beyond the river, towards the world. Whoever walks along Avenue des Arts enters another landscape entirely: that of European institutions, international organisations and legal decisions that travel silently across borders.

It is within that openness that we practise. Day after day. Rooted locally. Oriented internationally. The architecture of Antwerp’s Palace of Justice gives form to a justice system willing to be seen: visible, present and accessible. Brussels, too, serves as a daily reminder that the law is shaped through an ongoing dialogue between legal orders, languages and societies.

For the law does not live in stone. It lives in people. In the judge who weighs before deciding. In the lawyer who carries a vulnerable voice. In the citizen who still dares to ask for justice. In you, when seeking to protect what is rightfully yours.

The Palace of Justice reflects a society that believes justice need not conceal itself. That it may stand in the open light, sustained not by force, but by trust. Brussels carries that same conviction on another scale: a city where legal cultures meet, confront one another and, at times, reconcile. We share that ambition.

The law demands effort. From judges. From lawyers. From all those who refuse to surrender their rights. Yet that effort carries meaning, because it protects what remains vulnerable: your rights, your interests and your story.

The rule of law is never permanently secured. It remains a fragile and patient construction, endlessly renewed. Each day, it rests in the hands of those who continue to take it seriously. We intend to be among them. Elevated and vulnerable. Transparent and burdened with memory. Always becoming. Like the law itself.

V.

Contact

Please register here to receive our newsletters, or send us a message. The practice communicates in English, Dutch, French, German and Spanish.

Peeters Law Antwerp

Jos Smolderenstraat 65
BE-2000 Antwerp
+32 3 377 83 53

Peeters Law Brussels

Avenue des Arts 44
BE-1040 Brussels
+32 2 884 74 74

This form does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Your message is treated with strict professional confidentiality.

VI.

The Penteract Model and the Heptaract Approach

Methodology and Foundations

Why this approach?

Our methodological approach did not emerge from an ambition to impose an abstract theoretical system upon legal practice, but from a very practical observation: complex legal matters rarely operate within a single legal logic.

In practice, legal files often evolve simultaneously across multiple branches of law, legal orders, languages, normative frameworks and strategic considerations.

What initially appears to be a contractual dispute may simultaneously involve questions of jurisdiction, mandatory law and procedural strategy. A family law matter may engage not only domestic rules, but also international coordination mechanisms, legal culture and fundamental rights. A procedurally strong position may be assessed differently once parallel proceedings, enforceability concerns or reputational interests are taken into account.

The various components of a case therefore do not function as entirely isolated elements existing side by side. They continuously influence one another. Jurisdiction influences strategy. Strategy influences timing. Timing influences evidential positioning. Cultural context influences interpretation. Normative boundaries correct what may appear procedurally possible.

As in many other disciplines, reality here preceded the model. The analysis did not begin with an abstract scheme, but with repeated confrontation with matters in which certain patterns repeatedly reappeared. Out of that practical experience, the Penteract model and the broader Heptaract approach gradually emerged.

The geometric references function solely as conceptual and mnemonic tools. Their purpose is not to mathematise legal analysis, but to make visible the fact that complex legal reasoning frequently develops simultaneously across several interacting dimensions. Not as a mathematical system. Not as an algorithm. Not as an attempt to automate legal decision-making. Rather, as an analytical working framework intended to make visible how complex legal analysis often develops in reality: relationally, multilayeredly and recursively.

The Penteract Model

Five simultaneously active dimensions of legal analysis

These dimensions do not operate independently from one another, but in continuous interaction. A shift within one dimension frequently affects the analysis within the others. The reference to the “Penteract” is conceptual in nature: the interaction between these five dimensions may conceptually be represented as a five-dimensional hypercube. The five dimensions are analytically distinguishable, yet operationally interconnected.

The territorial dimension concerns, among other matters, jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement.

The substantive dimension concerns the legal qualification of facts and the interaction between different fields of law.

The cultural-linguistic dimension concerns the influence of language, legal culture and interpretative frameworks upon legal meaning.

The normative dimension encompasses fundamental rights, constitutional guarantees, general principles of law and normative hierarchy.

The strategic dimension concerns the interaction between analysis, procedural positioning, timing, discretion, negotiations and procedural choices.

The purpose of the model is not to suggest that these dimensions are new. Each already exists within doctrine and practice. The approach primarily seeks to render visible the manner in which these dimensions continuously influence and reorient one another within complex matters. Practice is often simultaneous and recursive where legal analysis is traditionally presented as linear.

The Heptaract Approach

The broader methodological architecture

The Heptaract approach refers to the broader methodological architecture within which, alongside the Penteract model, attention is also given to structural fault lines within the law and to the reflexive examination of the analytical framework itself.

The approach proceeds from the awareness that every method not only clarifies, but necessarily also simplifies. The moment a matter is structured, certain relationships become more visible, whilst other elements temporarily recede into the background. It is precisely for that reason that the Heptaract approach seeks not only to analyse the matter itself, but also periodically to reflect upon the perspective from which the analysis is conducted. From which legal culture is the matter being viewed? Which concepts are treated as self-evident? Which normative assumptions implicitly shape interpretation? Which elements may still remain outside the field of vision?

That reflexive posture is not a sign of uncertainty, but an attempt to preserve intellectual rigour within legal analysis where multiple legal orders, languages, interests and normative frameworks operate simultaneously. The approach further recognises that certain matters may contain structural tensions which cannot be fully resolved within a single normative framework. Where different legal orders, principles or jurisdictional structures operate simultaneously without a clear hierarchy, structural fault lines may become visible within the system itself.

The method does not purport to explain the law exhaustively or to eliminate legal uncertainty. Its ambition is more modest: to structure complex matters sufficiently so that relevant dimensions remain visible, whilst recognising that the model itself necessarily remains a simplification of reality.

Our Approach

At Peeters Law, legal matters are therefore approached not merely linearly, but relationally. Jurisdiction, substantive qualification, normative limitation, language, legal culture and strategy are not examined solely in sequence, but in their continuous interaction.

The Heptaract approach (H7) does not replace classical legal analysis or substantive legal expertise. Rather, it serves as a methodological framework for coherently structuring complex matters, particularly where multiple legal orders, languages, legal cultures and normative layers operate simultaneously.

Peeters Law handles matters with Karen-Anne Peeters as permanent lead counsel and personal point of contact. The firm coordinates matters according to this methodological approach and collaborates, where necessary, with specialised lawyers, academics and external experts. In this way, methodological coherence and targeted expertise are combined within a single integrated case strategy.

I. From Linear to Simultaneous Legal ReasoningSince Savigny developed the doctrine of the Sitz des Rechtsverhältnisses in the eighth volume of his System des heutigen römischen Rechts, private international law has largely been shaped by the idea that every legal relationship containing a foreign element possesses its natural anchoring within a particular legal order. The task of the lawyer is therefore to uncover that anchoring and thereby identify the legal order governing the relationship.

The Savignian model possessed remarkable systematic clarity: legal relationships were conceived as objectively locatable relations, whilst the conflict rule functioned as the instrument through which that localisation became visible. A century and a half later, that systematic purity has largely been relativised. Connecting factors have become pluralised, nuanced and, in certain fields, partially subjected to party autonomy.

Under the influence of authors such as Pierre Mayer, the second half of the twentieth century also witnessed a shift from a largely automatic conflict mechanism towards a more differentiated approach, in which the purpose of the rule, the object of the proceedings and the nature of the relief sought increasingly became part of the analysis itself. Yet the underlying architecture remained largely intact. Lawyers still frequently operate according to an implicit sequential model: first the question of jurisdiction; then the applicable law; thereafter qualification; and finally procedural and strategic implementation. The substance of the analysis has become richer; its underlying structure has remained largely the same.

It is precisely that structure of legal reasoning which is placed into question here. A sequential model assumes that each stage of the analysis may be completed independently before the next stage begins. Methodologically, this amounts to an assumption of independence. Jurisdiction could supposedly be determined without anticipating qualification. Qualification without regard to strategic positioning. Strategy as the concluding phase of an already completed substantive analysis.

Anyone who seriously observes legal practice, however, immediately notices that experienced lawyers rarely work in that manner. They constantly anticipate. They revisit earlier stages when later developments alter the analysis. The choice of forum is often connected to the anticipated qualification. Qualification is connected to the applicable law. The applicable law itself is often connected to the strategically defended connecting factor. Practice is recursive where doctrine remains linear.

This discrepancy between practice and doctrine does not constitute an argument for pragmatism against theory. Rather, it points towards a methodological lacuna. Where actual reasoning develops recursively whilst the explicit model remains linear, a substantial part of the analysis remains implicit. What remains implicit is difficult to test, transmit or criticise. The risk then emerges that legal reasoning evolves into a purely artisanal form of knowledge functioning only so long as its bearer remains present.

The Heptaract approach begins precisely from that observation. It proceeds from the premise that legal reasoning in complex matters is not truly sequential and cannot ever be entirely sequential. The method therefore attempts to formulate an architecture within which that simultaneous and recursive operation may be made explicitly visible.