Judicial Complaints Against Judge Michal Agmon-Gonen Lead to Warning to Leave WhatsApp Group

The Commissioner for Public Complaints Against Judges, retired Judge Asher Cohela, accepted several complaints against Judge Michal Agmon-Gonen regarding her activity in a WhatsApp group affiliated with the Women’s Lobby, which includes over 500 participants. The complaints centered on her active membership, a public post she made including the phrase “for your attention,” and a recommendation she gave for a lawyer who appears before her, whom she described as “the best.” The recommendation was later deleted from the group.

Judge Agmon-Gonen rejected the allegations, explaining that the group is a professional and closed forum for female legal professionals aimed at knowledge exchange and promoting gender equality. She said the post was intended to spark internal discussion on gender representation stereotypes, not to call for action. She also claimed the lawyer recommendation was sent mistakenly to the entire group instead of privately and that she has no personal or professional connection to the lawyer.

Commissioner Cohela did not accept the claim that the group is a private space, noting that with over 500 participants, it cannot be considered sufficiently private for a judge to express herself as if in a private conversation. He found that the forum also hosts discussions on political and public issues, sometimes in harsh language. Cohela ruled that an active membership by a sitting judge in such a forum conflicts with the judicial duties of restraint and impartiality. However, he clarified that his decision does not criticize the Women’s Lobby or its goals, but rather the judge’s involvement in a group linked to a body engaged in initiating legal proceedings and public controversies.

Regarding the phrase “for your attention,” Cohela determined it could be interpreted as urging forum members to act against an external party, potentially making the judge a strategic partner in initiating judicial actions and blurring the line between judicial duties and civil society activism. The public recommendation of a lawyer appearing before her was also criticized as inappropriate and potentially damaging to public trust in judicial impartiality. Although the judge claimed the message was a technical error, the ethical breach remained. The deletion of the message was accepted as not intended to conceal evidence.

Additionally, the commissioner noted concerns about the judge’s assistance, through her daughter, in referring someone to a legal job, which could raise ethical issues about using judicial status to advance others’ interests. Despite accepting the complaints, Cohela ruled that the overall conduct did not warrant disciplinary proceedings or termination of her tenure. He instructed the Courts Administration to advise the judge to sever all ties with the forum and leave it. He also recommended establishing clear guidelines for judges’ participation in social media and online forums and emphasized the prohibition and difficulties related to judges recommending lawyers.