Judicial Complaints Commissioner Intervenes After Judge Recommends Lawyer in Women’s Lobby WhatsApp Group
Translated & summarized from Maariv by baba
Public Complaints Commissioner Asher Kola found complaints against Judge Michal Agmon-Gonen justified for recommending a lawyer in a Women’s Lobby WhatsApp group but ruled out disciplinary action, urging clearer guidelines for judges’ social media use.
The story in 6 lines · by baba
- Judge Michal Agmon-Gonen recommended a lawyer in a Women’s Lobby WhatsApp group, sparking complaints.
- Public Complaints Commissioner Asher Kola found the complaints justified but no disciplinary action warranted.
- The WhatsApp forum has over 500 participants and engages in political and legal activism.
- Kola ruled the judge’s active participation conflicts with judicial ethics and restraint.
- The lawyer recommendation created an appearance of favoritism despite being deleted.
- Kola recommended clear rules for judges’ social media and online forum conduct.
Michal Agmon-Gonen, a district court judge, faced complaints for her participation in a WhatsApp forum run by the Women’s Lobby, where she recommended a lawyer who appeared before her in court. The Public Complaints Commissioner for Judges, Asher Kola, found the complaints justified but ruled against disciplinary action. The complaints centered on Agmon-Gonen’s membership in the group, a post she made addressing men and women differently, and her public recommendation of a lawyer described as "the best," which she later deleted.
During the investigation, another message was examined where the judge helped refer someone to a legal job through her daughter. Agmon-Gonen defended her actions, saying the forum was a professional, closed group of female legal professionals aimed at knowledge exchange and promoting gender equality. She explained the controversial post was meant to spark internal discussion on gender stereotypes and that the lawyer recommendation was mistakenly sent to the entire group instead of privately, with no personal or business ties to the lawyer.
Kola’s decision noted that the forum, with over 500 participants, could not be considered a private space justifying a judge’s informal speech. The forum also engages in political and public debates, sometimes harshly, and the Women’s Lobby promotes policy and legal activism. Therefore, an active judge’s membership conflicts with judicial restraint and ethics rules. The public recommendation of a lawyer appearing before her risks creating an appearance of favoritism and undermines public trust in judicial impartiality. Although the judge deleted the message, the ethical breach remained.
Despite these findings, Kola did not recommend disciplinary proceedings but suggested clear guidelines be established for judges’ participation in social media and online forums, especially regarding lawyer endorsements. He emphasized his ruling was not a criticism of the Women’s Lobby or its goals but highlighted the difficulty of a sitting judge’s involvement in a politically active forum initiating legal actions.
The case underscores the challenges judges face balancing professional ethics with engagement in advocacy groups and online platforms.
Mentioned
