Judicial Complaints Commissioner Criticizes Judge's Threat of 10,000 Shekel Fine

Israel's Commissioner for Complaints against Judges has partially upheld a complaint against a presiding judge who warned an unrepresented litigant that his conduct would cost him 10,000 shekels (approximately $2,700 USD). The Commissioner found that the judge's statement could have been perceived as pressure to agree to a settlement.

This ruling was one of three decisions published by the Commissioner concerning conduct during legal proceedings. In the case of the unrepresented litigant, who was involved in a divorce case, he had stated he would not sign an agreement or divorce without legal counsel. The judge then allegedly warned him about the potential 10,000 shekel cost. The judge denied pressuring the litigant, explaining the warning was due to the litigant wasting judicial time by making the request late in the proceedings. The judge noted that the litigant's request was eventually granted, the hearing was postponed for him to secure legal representation, and no costs were ultimately imposed.

Despite the judge's explanation and the fact that no costs were levied, the Commissioner ruled the complaint was partially justified. The Commissioner stated that the way the potential cost was presented was flawed and, given its proximity to the litigant's request for legal advice, could have created the impression of pressure to agree to the court's proposed settlement. The Commissioner distinguished between a statement that costs might be considered later and a categorical assertion that the litigant's actions would cost him a specific sum.

The Commissioner also criticized the judge's use of the phrase "what happened here is a scandal," deeming it inappropriate for a judge, especially when dealing with an unrepresented party, and suggesting more restrained language was warranted. However, the Commissioner did not find that the judge had coerced the litigant into signing the agreement or that the agreement was signed under duress. Claims regarding the agreement's validity, alimony amounts, and the parties' incomes were dismissed as matters for judicial determination.

In a separate case, a complaint about unequal examination rights in a rabbinical court was not upheld. The Commissioner noted that while the court has discretion in managing examinations, it would have been preferable to allow the other party a limited examination or clarify the reasons for stopping the questioning to maintain procedural fairness.

A third decision addressed a registrar's cancellation of a small claims court hearing on the same day it was scheduled, despite a prior six-month delay in addressing a motion to dismiss the case. While acknowledging the registrar acted appropriately on the day of the hearing by providing prompt notification, the Commissioner criticized the prolonged delay in deciding the dismissal motion and noted that canceling a hearing on short notice, after a litigant had made arrangements, was disrespectful of their time, though no compensation could be awarded.