- Sections
- P'ninat Mishpat
A Beit Din’s Withdrawal Relations with Legal ounsel
Case:
Ruling: The by-laws of the Rabbinical Courts system (#51) determine that a beit din may disqualify legal counsel from representing a litigant before their court if his continued participation hinders the possibility of coming to a just ruling or if the counsel treats the court disrespectfully. Both of these conditions are met in this case, and therefore, beit din is capable of removing the to’en rabbani from the case.
Beit din pointed out that even though the dayanim already wrote down their decisions regarding the case, the ruling is not finalized until at least a majority of the dayanim sign on the ruling. Even at this relatively late time in the process, the matter of the damaging newspaper interview could affect the objectivity of the dayanim and their ability to finalize a truthful decision.
In this case, the matter of whether to continue their participation in the case is of major significance because changing the panel of dayanim would delay the rendering of the ruling further. This is particularly damaging in a case like the one at hand where timely intervention is needed. Nevertheless, beit din decided to withdraw from the case and not disqualify the to’en rabbani. This is because the litigant and the to’en rabbani are closely connected for a long time. Thus, the litigant would view the removal of the to’en rabbani as a step taken against him personally. Additionally, such a decision would be liable to serve as "ammunition" for organizations with an interest to compromise the standing of the beit din.
A couple was involved in adjudication regarding questions of divorce and related monetary matters. One litigant hired a to’en rabbani (the equivalent of a lawyer for the rabbinical court system) to represent him. Within the framework of trying to promote his client’s legal prospects, the to’en rabbani was interviewed by a newspaper. The resulting article contained false information about the case and harsh criticism of the beit din. The to’en rabbani claimed in his interview that he had conformed to all of the requests with which beit din had presented him and that beit din was delaying the arrangement of the get in order to ruin his reputation. Beit din considered a few options. One was to disqualify the to’en rabbani from serving as legal counsel in this case. Another possibility was to recluse themselves from hearing the case and set a panel comprised of different dayanim who had a more positive relationship with this to’en rabbani.
Ruling: The by-laws of the Rabbinical Courts system (#51) determine that a beit din may disqualify legal counsel from representing a litigant before their court if his continued participation hinders the possibility of coming to a just ruling or if the counsel treats the court disrespectfully. Both of these conditions are met in this case, and therefore, beit din is capable of removing the to’en rabbani from the case.
Beit din pointed out that even though the dayanim already wrote down their decisions regarding the case, the ruling is not finalized until at least a majority of the dayanim sign on the ruling. Even at this relatively late time in the process, the matter of the damaging newspaper interview could affect the objectivity of the dayanim and their ability to finalize a truthful decision.
In this case, the matter of whether to continue their participation in the case is of major significance because changing the panel of dayanim would delay the rendering of the ruling further. This is particularly damaging in a case like the one at hand where timely intervention is needed. Nevertheless, beit din decided to withdraw from the case and not disqualify the to’en rabbani. This is because the litigant and the to’en rabbani are closely connected for a long time. Thus, the litigant would view the removal of the to’en rabbani as a step taken against him personally. Additionally, such a decision would be liable to serve as "ammunition" for organizations with an interest to compromise the standing of the beit din.

P'ninat Mishpat (663)
Various Rabbis
51 - Incompatibility Between a Lawyer and a Dayan
52 - A Beit Din’s Withdrawal Relations with Legal ounsel
53 - Replacing a Dayan When the Matter Will Cause a Delay
Load More

Historical View of Rav Mordechai Yaakov Breish (Chelkat Yaakov)
Various Rabbis | 5775

A Will That Was Not Publicized
Rabbi Yoav Sternberg | Kislev 5768

Aftermath of a Complex Partnership – part II
based on ruling 76096 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Iyar 16 5782

A Disappointing Partnership – part III
Various Rabbis | Tamuz 26 5779

Various Rabbis
Various Rabbis including those of of Yeshivat Bet El, such as Rabbi Chaim Katz, Rabbi Binyamin Bamberger and Rabbi Yitzchak Greenblat and others.

Responsibility for a Failed Joint Investment – part II
Adar 5773

Parshat Beshalach - Questions
5772

Levels of Thanks
5771

Initiating a Din Torah Against the Plaintiff’s Will
5771

Writing on Shabbat
Rabbi Yirmiyohu Kaganoff

Erasing on Shabbos
Rabbi Yirmiyohu Kaganoff | Tamuz 2 5780

Rabbi Tzvi Yehuda Kook - A Biographical Overview
R Avraham Levi Melamed
The Laws of Modesty
Rabbi Eliezer Melamed | 5764

Sad to Die in the Middle of Tamuz?
Rabbi Haggai Lundin
Daily Mishna - Terumot 4, 3-4
Rabbi Moshe Leib Halberstadt | Sivan 30 5782
Daily Mishna - Terumot 3, 8-9
Rabbi Moshe Leib Halberstadt | Sivan 28 5782
