According to a report in the Israeli business daily
Globes, for over five years the president of the
Jerusalem Magistrates' Court, Vardimous Zeiler, along with his
wife Ilana, have been enjoying gratis representation from two
large legal firms from the north of Israel. Zeiler has refused
comment on the issue, while the Court administration has
claimed that the matter is Zeiler's own private affair.
According to Zeiler's demands for reimbursement of expenses,
he has run up a bill of at least 300 thousand shekalim
in legal fees so far.
A claim was submitted against an anonymous party and his
sister, who are formally represented by Zeiler's wife Ilana as
their legal custodian; the acting legal representative is
Judge Zeiler.
Zeiler in turn is represented by the Solomon-Lipshitz and the
Yeshurun law offices. These are the two largest law firms in
the north, and the firm's top lawyers have been present during
court sessions.
Such gratis legal representation does not seem to be
appropriate to Zeiler's position as a judge.
The case involves a 2.5 million shekel claim submitted
against Ilana Zeiler by the Swedia Construction and Investment
Company. The plaintiffs are protesting what they say is a
unilateral cancellation of part of a complex business deal,
personally done by Zeiler for the benefit of the anonymous
party and his sister. They also object to what they call the
obstruction of the transfer of ownership of newly-constructed
apartments to their purchasers and monetary damage to the
company.
The court case was heard in the Haifa Magistrates' Court
before Judge Raya Chafri-Winogradov, at Zeiler's request. The
change of venue took place at the directive of the President
of the High Court, Aharon Barak, following a phone call
between him and Zeiler. This is obviously not standard
procedure for transfer of a case.
In his testimony, Zeiler confirmed that he was the main
signatory on the deal. The Zeilers claimed that the contract
was cancelled because of violations by Swedia and its
owners.
Zeiler claims that the company violated standard building
procedure and did not live up to the terms of the agreement.
He claims that he announced that the contract was null and
void after his demand to receive an additional 90 square
meters as his part of the deal was refused.
Swedia claims that the Zeilers deserve to get only a few
square meters, at best, and that in any case this was not
cause for cancellation of the entire agreement. Swedia even
notified the Court that it is willing to post a bond for the
guarantee of the amount of area to be decided, if only Zeiler
will allow transfer of the apartments to their purchasers,
along with their registration in the Land Registry. Zeiler is
opposed to this and the case is at a stalemate.
A verdict in the case was first announced in October 2000.
Chafri- Winogradov rejected the claim against Swedia. She
agreed that the plaintiff perpetrated only minor violations of
the agreement. In summary, she ordered the company to add to
the defendants -- the anonymous party and his sister - - an
area of 4.93 square meters to each of the two apartments that
had been promised to them under the agreement.
It was further determined that (through his wife) Zeiler
improperly broke the contract, "since he did not receive court
approval." On the one hand, the plaintiff did violate the
contract, but on the other hand, "[complete] cancellation was
unjustified," the judge determined.
Under the circumstances, the judge determined, "neither the
Zeilers nor the other two defendants will receive compensation
of legal expenses." In spite of this, Zeiler still refuses to
allow the lawyer dealing with the project to transfer
ownership rights to purchasers of the apartments.
Following the verdict Zeiler appealed to the High Court,
asking that Swedia compensate him for legal fees in the amount
of 300 thousand shekel. In current negotiations between the
two sides, Zeiler is demanding a promise to pay thirty
thousand dollars in legal fees even if his appeal is not
approved by the High Court, as a condition for transfer of the
apartment rights.
Swedia's large stockholders are firmly opposed to this request
and they have submitted an appeal of the Magistrates' Court
decision. The Solomon- Lipshitz office has said in response
that when disagreement broke out between Swedia and the
defendants, the late Attorney Naftali Lipshitz was approached
to act as their representative. He accepted the job because of
a familial relationship with their father and a deep
friendship between him and their parents that continued even
after their death.
"When the legal complaint was filed, it became clear that
Ilana Zeiler is also a defendant. Our office did not represent
her in Court; she was represented by another office. We
reached an agreement for representation between our office and
the two clients -- the anonymous party and his sister. This is
not the time to go into details about the arrangement.
"In summaries presented to the High Court within the framework
of the of the Magistrates' Court decision appeal presented by
our office, it states, among other things, that the only
rationale for an appeal is intimidation against Mr. Zeiler.
The impression has arisen that the expected publicity will
only serve as a continuation of this."
