Lawyer Convicted of Ethics Violations After Suing Uncooperative Client

An Israeli attorney, Ravit Sini, has been convicted of three disciplinary offenses by the Israel Bar Association's disciplinary tribunal, including conflict of interest and unbecoming conduct. The conviction stems from a lawsuit Sini filed for approximately NIS 730,000 against a homeowner in a urban renewal project in Givatayim who refused to sign an agreement with the developer. The tribunal ruled that filing the lawsuit created a conflict of interest, as it pitted Sini's duty to all homeowners against her desire to advance the project and secure her own fees. The court stated it was "inconceivable" to allow Sini to represent some residents against another resident when all were her clients.

The disciplinary proceedings began after a complaint filed in June 2022 by the Government Authority for Urban Renewal regarding Sini's conduct in two urban renewal projects, one in Givatayim and another in Ashdod. While Sini was convicted in the Givatayim case, she was acquitted of charges related to the Ashdod project, with the tribunal dismissing claims of a systematic pattern of misconduct.

The Givatayim case involved a project where residents had chosen a developer before engaging Sini. In early 2020, Sini had some residents sign an agreement to advance the project, conditional on the developer meeting agreed-upon terms. This agreement stipulated that Sini's fees would be paid by the developer, and any homeowner refusing to sign the final agreement would owe Sini NIS 20,000 plus VAT in compensation. One homeowner signed the initial agreement but later refused to sign the final one.

Sini then sued this homeowner for approximately NIS 730,000, a sum that represented her full expected fee for the entire project, NIS 625,000 plus VAT. The tribunal found that Sini's fee agreement only stipulated a first payment of around NIS 31,000, or at most NIS 162,000, not the full amount she sued for. The tribunal concluded that Sini did not believe she was entitled to the full amount when she filed the suit, yet pursued it to pressure the homeowner.

Sini was also convicted of violating advertising rules because her demand letter to the homeowner included the logo of her firm and the name of Ovad Alon, who is a tenant coordinator, not an attorney. The tribunal acknowledged Sini's explanation that the lawsuit was intended to pressure the homeowner into signing the agreement due to pressure from other residents and the risk of project delays. However, the court emphasized that even the homeowner's unclear objections to the agreement did not justify Sini's actions. The tribunal criticized the Bar Association's ethics committee for pursuing some charges despite easily verifiable facts.