A report by Ynet has revealed internal correspondence between senior officials of the Israel Bar Association (IBA), collected by the State Comptroller, raising questions regarding the conduct of the IBA Chair, Adv. Amit Bachar. The documents include communications from the IBA’s Legal Advisor, Adv. Mirit Shalev, and the CFO and Comptroller, Tomer Yazdi, both designated as 'gatekeepers' within the organization. Adv. Shalev, who has held her position for four years, addressed professional and managerial dilemmas in the current term, noting that they were unprecedented in previous tenures.
In her discussions, she complained about the approval of high-cost initiatives, including the appointment of external consultants and the relocation of departments, which she claimed undermined the budget and operational efficiency. Furthermore, questions were raised regarding Bachar's authority to appoint committee heads without National Council approval, an issue that led to disputes with the IBA Director General, Adv. Vered Zeitman. For his part, CFO Tomer Yazdi documented disagreements with the Chair regarding financial decisions and directives he deemed problematic.
Yazdi expressed concerns regarding his professional standing and the organizational culture, noting in his correspondence that he required a 'protection agreement' as a condition of his employment. Among the issues highlighted in the report: a public campaign against the government costing 300,000 NIS, largely financed by the IBA after funding collection from law firms fell short of expectations. In response to the report, Adv. Shalev and Adv. Yazdi emphasized that their correspondence was taken out of context and that the complexities they highlighted stemmed from the sensitive political climate and government attacks on the Bar.
Conversely, the Israel Bar Association stated that these are baseless allegations originating from a former Director General, who filed false complaints in an attempt to influence her severance terms. The IBA emphasized that all appointments were made legally and campaigns were approved by the relevant institutions, while accusing political elements of a sustained effort to disparage its independent activities.