A deep structural change in Israel's court system is at the heart of a new proposal by former Supreme Court President Dorit Beinisch. In a report published by Maariv, Beinisch presented a structured plan to address the heavy burden on Israel's highest judicial body. According to Beinisch, the current structure, largely based on British Mandate-era foundations, no longer suits modern reality and current case volumes. The core of the proposal is the establishment of an additional appellate tier positioned between the district courts and the Supreme Court.
In her view, this tier should handle the majority of civil and criminal appeals, many of which focus on factual clarification rather than fundamental legal questions. This move is intended to allow the Supreme Court to reduce its caseload and focus on issues of broad public and constitutional importance, thereby addressing the exceptional workload of the Israeli system compared to OECD countries. However, Beinisch qualified her proposal, clarifying that she does not support the American model, where the Supreme Court hears a negligible number of cases annually.
She emphasized that an excessive screening mechanism could disconnect judges from Israel's social reality. According to her position, broad exposure to cases from lower courts is essential for identifying systemic failures and understanding the full social picture. She suggested a balance that does not limit the court to a few dozen cases but allows for a comprehensive view of what is happening on the ground. In addition to structural changes, Beinisch noted complementary steps needed to improve the system's performance.
These include a significant increase in the number of judges, the allocation of additional resources, and the diversion of proceedings that do not require judicial rulings to alternative dispute resolution methods such as mediation and administrative mechanisms. Addressing the public discourse surrounding judicial reform, Beinisch criticized those involved, arguing that they focused on regime-related reform while ignoring the system's practical, day-to-day needs, which impede its functioning.
For legal professionals, Beinisch's proposals reflect an attempt to bridge the need for procedural efficiency with the preservation of the Supreme Court's classic role as a norm-setting body. The proposed change could lead to future revisions in procedural rules and case distribution, directly impacting litigation management strategies.