Judicial Complaints Against Tel Aviv District Court Judge Found Justified but No Disciplinary Action Recommended

The Commissioner for Complaints Against Judges, Asher Cola, ruled that several complaints against Michal Agmon-Gonen, a judge at the Tel Aviv District Court, were justified. The complaints involved her active membership in a WhatsApp forum linked to the Women’s Lobby, a non-neutral organization engaged in legal and public advocacy, her statements perceived as calls to action, and a public recommendation of a lawyer who appeared before her. Despite finding her conduct inconsistent with the judicial duties of restraint and impartiality, Cola did not recommend disciplinary measures against her.

The complaints centered on Judge Agmon-Gonen’s participation in a WhatsApp group with over 500 members, where she posted a message addressed differently to men and women with the phrase "for your attention," which was interpreted as inciting action. She also publicly recommended a lawyer appearing before her, describing him as "the best," though she claimed this was sent mistakenly to the group instead of privately. The judge denied wrongdoing, stating the forum was a closed professional group aimed at promoting gender equality and that the recommendation was accidental.

Cola’s investigation concluded that the WhatsApp forum could not be considered a private space justifying such expressions, especially since it involves political and public debates and is affiliated with an organization that initiates legal actions. The judge’s active membership conflicted with ethical rules requiring judicial restraint and neutrality. The public recommendation of a lawyer was deemed inappropriate and potentially damaging to public trust in judicial impartiality, regardless of the claimed technical error.

Additionally, Cola noted concerns about the judge’s involvement in helping her daughter secure a legal job, cautioning against using judicial status for personal favors. While the complaints were upheld, the commissioner emphasized that the issues did not warrant disciplinary proceedings or removal from office. He instructed the court administration to advise the judge to sever ties with the forum and recommended establishing clear guidelines for judges’ participation in social media and online forums, as well as clarifying prohibitions on recommending lawyers publicly.

Cola stressed that his decision was not a critique of the Women’s Lobby itself but focused solely on the judge’s conduct and the need to maintain public confidence in judicial neutrality.