District judge recommended a lawyer in a WhatsApp group — Ombudsman Asher Cola intervened

Ombudsman for the Judiciary, Asher Cola, released on Thursday a summary of a decision concerning the boundaries of judges' participation in social networks and their provision of recommendations for lawyers. He found complaints against a district judge on the matter to be justified. The decision discusses several complaints filed against Judge Michal Agmon-Gonen, of the Tel Aviv District Court, regarding her active membership in the 'Israel Women's Network' WhatsApp forum, which has over 500 participants.

The complaints referred to the judge's membership in the forum, the publication of an advertisement on her behalf in which different messages were presented to men and women, adding the words "for your attention" (in the feminine form). Also, an incident where the judge recommended in the forum a lawyer who appears before her, describing him as "the best," after which the recommendation was deleted from the forum. As part of the complaint investigation, another message published in the forum was examined, in which the judge, through her daughter, assisted with a referral for a legal position.

The judge, who was asked to respond to the ombudsman, rejected the claims. According to her, it is a professional and closed forum of female jurists, intended for exchanging knowledge and promoting gender equality. Regarding the publication of the advertisement, she explained that she sought to spark an internal discussion about stereotypical gender representation and not to incite action. Regarding the recommendation of the lawyer, she stated that the message was intended to be sent as a private message, but was sent by mistake to the entire group, and that she has no personal or business connection to that lawyer.

The judge added that the deletion of the message was intended to reduce public exposure and not to hide evidence. The matter of the judge's conduct was first published by Avishai Grinzaig from i24. At the end of the ombudsman's investigation, which included the judge's response, the Ombudsman for the Judiciary, Judge (retired) Asher Cola, found the complaints justified.

The decision determined that a forum with over 500 participants cannot be considered a private or closed space to an extent that justifies a judge's expression as if it were a private conversation.

It was also found that "a discussion also takes place in the forum on controversial political and public issues, sometimes in blunt language, and that the 'Israel Women's Network' deals, among other things, with promoting policy through legal tools and initiating legal and public activity. In these circumstances, it was determined that the active membership of a sitting judge in the forum is inconsistent with the duties of restraint and moderation imposed on a judge and with the provisions of the Code of Judicial Ethics."

It was further stated: "Regarding the recommendation of the lawyer, it was determined that a public recommendation by a judge of a lawyer appearing before her, and especially describing him as 'the best,' is inappropriate and may create an appearance of favoritism and harm public trust in the equality between litigants and in judicial impartiality. The fact that the publication was made, according to the judge, due to a technical error does not negate the ethical flaw that was created. However, the ombudsman accepted the judge's explanation regarding the deletion of the message and did not find that the deletion was done with the intention of hiding evidence."

Alongside this, the ombudsman determined that the flaws found do not justify taking disciplinary action and recommended formulating clear rules regarding the participation of judges in social networks and online forums and regarding the provision of recommendations for lawyers.

Furthermore, the ombudsman emphasized that his decision does not constitute criticism of the 'Israel Women's Network', its goals, or its activities. The ombudsman noted that the difficulty lies in the membership of a sitting judge in a forum identified with a body that deals, among other things, with initiating legal proceedings and activity on issues that are subject to public controversy.