Israel’s judicial complaints commissioner has upheld a complaint filed by a man who said a bais din warned him that refusing to sign a proposed divorce agreement could result in NIS 10,000 in legal costs, finding that the warning could have been perceived as improper pressure to accept the bais din’s proposal.

Retired Judge Asher Kula, the Commissioner for Complaints Against Judges, released summaries Sunday of several recent decisions involving complaints against judges and batei din, including the case involving the NIS 10,000 warning.

According to the complaint, the man was appearing in proceedings involving a divorce claim filed against him and was not yet represented by an attorney. During the hearing, the head of the bais din allegedly warned him that if he did not sign the divorce agreement, his refusal would “cost” him NIS 10,000 in legal expenses.

The man maintained that, at that stage, he did not understand the implications of the agreement being presented to him. He therefore asked not to sign anything until he could obtain legal advice and have the terms and consequences of the agreement explained to him.

After reviewing the circumstances, Kula determined that the complaint was justified.

According to the commissioner, raising the possibility of imposing NIS 10,000 in costs immediately after the man said that he was unwilling to sign the agreement or proceed with the divorce before obtaining legal counsel could have been understood as pressure to accept the bais din’s proposal.

In a separate decision, the commissioner addressed the handling of a case in small claims court. A complainant said a senior registrar had failed for approximately six months to rule on a municipality’s request to dismiss a lawsuit for lack of jurisdiction.

A decision dismissing the lawsuit was ultimately issued only on the morning the hearing was scheduled to take place, less than four hours before the proceeding was set to begin.

The complainant said that because of the delay, he lost a day of work and was forced to prepare unnecessarily for a hearing that ultimately never took place.

The commissioner acknowledged that on the morning of the scheduled hearing, the registrar acted efficiently in attempting to notify the parties and prevent them from making an unnecessary trip to court. Looking at the case as a whole, however, Kula concluded that greater consideration should have been given to the litigant’s time.

Another complaint involved the issue of equal treatment between the parties during proceedings in a bais din.

A woman complained that the man’s attorney was permitted to question her at length, while her own attorney was not afforded a comparable opportunity to question the man.

The review found that the bais din itself had extensively questioned both parties and concluded that the factual record necessary to decide the case had been sufficiently developed.

Nevertheless, the commissioner observed that once the attorney representing one side had been permitted to question the opposing litigant, the bais din should have considered granting the other side’s attorney a similar opportunity. Doing so, he said, would help preserve procedural equality between the parties as well as the appearance of justice.