These days, a High Court proceeding is underway between the president of the Rabbinical Court of Appeals, Rabbi David Lau, and attorney Batia Kahana-Dror, which deals with the question of Rabbi Lau’s conflict of interest regarding the appointment of his brother-in-law, Rabbi Mordechai Ralbag, as the head of the Rabbinical Courts in Jerusalem.
Into this cauldron entered the Legal Adviser to the Government as well as the Legal Advisor to the Rabbinical Court, Adv. In them explicitly on the same day, otherwise he will consider them responsible for all that is implied in the short term and in the long term.
■ The senior, the fictitious grant, the resignation claims and the uproar in the rabbinical courts
■ Following the “Globes” exposure: a demand to investigate the ombudsman of the Rabbinical Courts, Shimon Jacobi
In response to Globes, Attorney Jacobi also took a hard line at the senior lawyer who serves as the chairman of the lawyers’ representation, and claimed that he submitted a false position on behalf of the lawyers’ representation that was not in the opinion of the members of the delegation. The members of the delegation in their response to Globes denied Attorney Jacobi’s claims. More on that later in the article, but first a little background.
Mechanism for dealing with conflict of interest
The dispute in the High Court today mainly concerns the question of how to deal with a situation in which the President of the Court has to make a decision on a matter in which he is in a conflict of interest. The rabbinical court proposed a fourth mechanism.
Rabbi Lau proposed that in cases where the president of the court has a conflict of interest, the powers will be delegated to the Chief Rabbi of Israel who serves together with him, or alternatively a mechanism of retired judges will be established, who will be appointed by a person familiar with the operation of the rabbinical court system: the first Chief Rabbi of Israel to note Rabbi Yitzchak Yosef; Or Rabbi Shlomo Deichovski, who previously served as a judge at the Great Rabbinical Court and as the CEO of the Rabbinical Courts.
The courts have a representation of judges, just as there is a representation of judges in the courts. The members of the delegation submitted a request to the High Court, in which they wrote that “as members of the national lawyers’ delegation, who requested to join as respondents to this petition, being direct and actual stakeholders in its matter, the honorable court is requested to make a decision that is in line with the line drawn by the honorable judges during the first hearing of the petition that took place, And according to this committee, whose job it is to appoint chiefs of courts and chiefs of court chiefs in the court system, only retired judges will serve.”
The representative of the judges wrote in her response to the High Court that she believes that in order to maintain the fundamental principle established from time immemorial, according to which the principle of “mutual respect” must be maintained between the various jurisdictions, while maintaining maximum independence of each of them, and in this matter, strict maintenance of its position and independence of the court system, which is part of the judiciary for all intents and purposes – it is very important that any decision regarding the appointment of incumbent judges to senior positions in the court system be made by a committee composed entirely of members of the court system. Any appointment of an external party, especially if it is a party belonging to the executive authority such as the ombudsman or any of the executive authority appointed by him, will harm the status and dignity of the court system and the judiciary, and may even harm its judicial independence.
The delegation rejected the state’s proposal, according to which the ombudsman of the courts, Shimon Jacobi, would be involved in such a committee, this due to “being affected by a serious conflict of interest in our case, due to the rift that has existed – for a long time – between him and the vast majority of Israeli lawyers, and even more so between him and Hon. President of the Great Rabbinical Court.
It was also written by the judges that “we did not see fit to burden the honor of the judges with difficult events that express the level of personal tension, but it seems that if we were required to detail the things before the honorable court, it seems that he would have been puzzled by Attorney Jacobi, who does not disqualify himself from submitting any opinion concerning the Honorable President of the Great Court. We will mention only the obvious and known things: Adv. Jacobi submitted his candidacy for the position of Dayan, and it is currently pending before the Committee for the Selection of Jurists. Adv. Jacobi was even interviewed by a sub-committee of the Committee for the Selection of Jurists. In any case, it will be understood that there is a clear conflict of interest – both personal and fundamental – between him and the Honorable President of the High Court, who is one of the members of the Jury Selection Committee.”
Before the lawyers’ representation sent the notice to the High Court, it forwarded the draft to the response of Rabbi Lau’s lawyers, Amit Hadad and Noa Milstein, as well as to the response of the attorney general’s office, which represents the legal advisor to the government and the legal advisor to the courts.
A threatening message
Adv. What is written there and/or repeated in you, I see each of you as personally responsible for those things, for all the accompanying meanings in the short term and in the long term.”
Following this threatening message, the representatives of the judges decided to slightly soften the response that was eventually submitted to the High Court regarding the serious conflict of interest of Attorney Jacobi and the rift that exists between him and the judges.
The Ministry of Justice clarified in response to Globes’ inquiry that the threatening letter sent by Attorney Jacobi was sent without the knowledge of the legal counsel to the government or the state attorney’s office that represents him in the proceedings. The legitimacy of the message, the Ministry of Justice chose not to comment.
We contacted the court administration’s response to get its response. Indeed, the response of the “Court Management” arrived, but after inquiry it was brought up that the response was written by the Ombudsman of the Courts, Adv. Just sending it. The Director of the Rabbinical Courts, Rabbi Eli Ben Dahan, made it clear that the response is based solely on the opinion of Attorney Jacobi, and that he is very strict about this response.
In response to Globes’ question, the spokesperson finally confirmed that the response that glorifies Adv.
Adv. On conflicts of interest in the appointment of his brother-in-law Rabbi Mordechai Ralbag to the head of the court in Jerusalem.
“The Legal Adviser to the Government, as well as the Legal Adviser of the Rabbinical Courts, as respondents in the petition, believed that indeed such an appointment by the President of the Great Rabbinical Court raises real conflicts of interest, and that this appointment should be reassigned to an independent and independent committee. Accordingly, Natan Beg An interim order requiring Rabbi Lau to transfer any appointment to Adv. Jacobi, in order to examine in advance the question of conflict of interest.
“The chairman of the representatives of the judges saw fit, for incomprehensible reasons and due to pressure exerted by interested parties, to request to join this process alongside the president of the great rabbinical court, and in the framework of a position he sent to the judges of the High Court, he expressed himself harshly against the legal advisor of the rabbinical courts in a defiant, lacking manner. Shahar, the sinner of the facts on the ground. The things that were written did not agree with all the members of the delegation and were also baseless to say the least – that is what the internal email to the members of the Deinim delegation, which was leaked by the same interested associate, was about. Indeed, following that email, the wording of the delegation’s chairman’s message was changed to the High Court in a substantial way”.
The president of the Rabbinical Court of Appeals, Rabbi David Lau, chose not to respond to the news.
The representatives of the judges of the rabbinical courts said in response that “This response is given in accordance with Rule 40(e) of the Rules of Ethics for Judges 2008-2008. The representatives of the judges express full confidence in the chairman of the representatives of the judges, Rabbi Ashkelon, the judge Rabbi Meir Kahana, and stands behind all his actions. The correction of the wording in the notice to the High Court, which came to your reporter, was done for peace reasons only.
“Out of respect for the court system and for the honor of Rabbi Jacobi, the representative believes that it would not be right to enter the details of the events that led to tension between Rabbi Jacobi and Israeli lawyers. These days, the chairman of the lawyers’ representative is working, in full coordination With the Director of the Rabbinical Courts, Rabbi Eliyahu Ben Dahan, to restore peace to the court system and to restore Attorney Rabbi Jacobi to full function in assisting Israeli lawyers as usual.”