20 August 2026ynet – RSS חדשות בסינון משפטי

Complaints Commissioner: District Judge Violated Judicial Ethics

Complaints Commissioner Asher Cojocaro ruled that complaints against Judge Michal Agmon-Gonen of the Tel Aviv District Court are justified, citing a breach of judicial restraint.

Source transparency

This is an original newsroom summary and analysis. The source was not reproduced, and readers can inspect the original publication.

Original publication at ynet – RSS חדשות בסינון משפטי

Why it matters

The decision clarifies the boundaries for judges on social media, emphasizing that the duty of restraint applies to online forums to prevent compromising the perceived neutrality of the judiciary.

Key points

  • ▪The Commissioner for Complaints Against Judges ruled that complaints against Judge Michal Agmon-Gonen are justified.
  • ▪Participation in a politically active online forum is inconsistent with the duty of judicial restraint.
  • ▪Recommending an attorney who appears before the judge constitutes an ethical flaw.
  • ▪The Commissioner found no grounds for disciplinary action in these circumstances.
  • ▪Clear guidelines were recommended for judicial presence on social media and online recommendations.

Complaints Commissioner, retired judge Asher Cojocaro, issued a decision regarding Judge Michal Agmon-Gonen of the Tel Aviv District Court. The review followed complaints regarding the judge’s active membership in a WhatsApp forum for the Israel Women's Network, which consists of hundreds of members. The complainants argued that the forum is involved in legal and public proceedings, creating significant ethical issues for a sitting judge. The investigation examined two primary events: a post with the caption 'For your attention,' interpreted as gender-based advocacy, and a positive recommendation for an attorney appearing before her, whom she described as 'the best.

' Judge Agmon-Gonen rejected these allegations. Regarding forum membership, she stated it is a professional framework for knowledge exchange and promoting equality. As for the post, she claimed it was intended to initiate an internal discussion on gender representation. Regarding the attorney, she explained the recommendation was sent to the group by mistake instead of as a private message and that she has no business relationship with him. Commissioner Cojocaro ruled the complaints justified.

He emphasized that a forum with over 500 members cannot be considered a private space. Membership in a group focused on promoting legal and political policy, at times using harsh language, undermines the appearance of justice and blurs the lines between judicial duties and civil society activity. Furthermore, a public recommendation by a judge of an attorney appearing in her courtroom, especially calling them 'the best,' is an ethical flaw that damages public trust in impartiality.

The Commissioner noted that while the action was a technical error, it does not negate the flaw. However, he ruled that the issues do not warrant disciplinary action or termination. He instructed that the judge be advised to disconnect from the forum and recommended that the Courts Administration establish clear rules for judges' social media participation and prohibit online attorney recommendations.

General information only. This item is not legal advice and does not replace review of the original source.

Back to all legal news

LawFirms.pro

Update or Remove Public Information

LawFirms.pro allows lawyers and the public to submit requests to update, correct, or remove public information for manual review.

Update or Remove Profile