Rabbinical Court Divorce Pressure: Judge Threatens Fine

Israel's Commissioner for Public Complaints Against Judges, retired judge Asher Kula, released summaries on Sunday of several recent complaints his office has handled, including one he found justified concerning a warning issued to a litigant in a rabbinical court divorce case.

According to the complaint, during a hearing on a divorce petition filed against the complainant (who was not yet represented by an attorney) the presiding rabbinical judge warned him that if he refused to sign the proposed divorce agreement, his refusal would "cost" him 10,000 shekels (approximately $2,800) in legal expenses.

The complainant argued that at that stage he did not understand the implications of the proposed agreement and therefore requested not to sign anything before receiving legal advice that would clarify what the agreement meant.

After reviewing the case, Commissioner Kula found the complaint justified. He stated that presenting the possibility of a 10,000-shekel charge in legal costs immediately after the complainant indicated he was unwilling to sign or divorce before obtaining legal counsel could be interpreted as applying pressure to accept the court's proposal.

A senior registrar in small claims court failed to rule on a municipality's motion to dismiss for six months. The dismissal order was issued on the morning of the scheduled hearing, less than four hours before court was set to convene.

The complainant argued the delay forced him to lose a workday and prepare unnecessarily. While the ombudsman acknowledged that the registrar acted efficiently that morning by attempting to notify both parties and prevent their unnecessary appearance, she determined that the six-month delay demonstrated a lack of respect for the litigant's time. The decision should have been rendered far earlier.

Rabbinical Court Allows Unequal Cross-Examination, Ombudsman Rules

The ombudsman found that a rabbinical court permitted unequal cross-examination between parties during a hearing. The male defendant's attorney was allowed to cross-examine the female complainant extensively, while her attorney was not afforded the same opportunity to question the defendant.

The rabbinical court argued it had questioned both parties directly and gathered sufficient facts for a ruling. The ombudsman accepted that rationale but determined that once one party's attorney is permitted to cross-examine, basic fairness requires considering the same opportunity for the opposing counsel.