Legal Adviser Defends Rulings After Israeli Minister's Challenge

Legal Conflict Escalates Between Israeli Minister and Legal Adviser

A growing conflict has emerged between Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi and the legal adviser of his ministry, Bruria Mendelson. The dispute centers on the authority of legal rulings and the independence of legal advisors within the government structure.

Karhi reportedly instructed all employees in his ministry to disregard legal opinions issued by the attorney general and the ministry's legal adviser. This directive came after Karhi claimed that these rulings do not hold binding legal authority. However, Mendelson quickly responded by asserting that her orders, as well as those from Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara, are legally binding on all ministry staff.

In a letter addressed to all employees, Mendelson emphasized that legal opinions from both herself and the attorney general must be followed. She stated that this obligation stems from the duty of every individual to uphold the law and ensure proper governance. Her statement was reinforced by a recent Supreme Court ruling that suspended the government’s decision to remove Baharav-Miara until the court reaches a final verdict. Until then, the attorney general’s powers remain unchanged.

Mendelson also referenced civil service bylaws that clarify the role of legal advisers. According to these regulations, the legal opinion of a ministry’s legal adviser determines the existing legal situation for all employees unless an authorized court rules otherwise.

Currently, legal advisers within ministries operate under the supervision of the attorney general. However, this arrangement could change if a recently passed bill becomes law. The bill, approved by the Ministerial Committee for Legislation, would place legal advisers under the direct control of the ministry’s director general, who is appointed by the minister. This shift has raised concerns about the potential politicization of legal advice.

Attorney General Baharav-Miara strongly opposed the bill, calling it “a wolf in sheep’s clothing.” She argued that the proposal does not provide greater independence to legal advisers but instead subordinates them to political influence.

Mendelson was appointed as the legal adviser to the Communications Ministry two years ago, following a period during which she served as the acting legal adviser. She has been involved in several significant reforms and has long been regarded as a relatively nonconfrontational figure in her role. For instance, she supported Karhi’s attempt to dismiss the chairman of Israel Post, although the Supreme Court ultimately overturned that decision.

Over the past year, however, Karhi has made repeated attempts to remove Mendelson, reportedly due to her reluctance to fully comply with his plans. His efforts have been blocked by Baharav-Miara’s office, which has consistently backed Mendelson.

To support his case, Karhi sought an opinion from Maimon Shamila, the former acting director general of the ministry. Shamila had previously worked with Mendelson and was part of the committee that selected her for the position. During her initial six-month trial period, he gave her a positive performance rating. However, three months later, he changed his assessment, claiming her performance had declined. He attributed this to factors such as the war, changes in work hours, remote work, and complex administrative tasks.

Despite this, Baharav-Miara’s office rejected Shamila’s claims, stating that he provided no evidence of any decline in Mendelson’s performance. Deputy attorneys general Gil Limon and Meir Levin noted that Shamila did not cite specific tasks that were left uncompleted or performed unsatisfactorily.

The issue was further highlighted by a statement from Supreme Court President Isaac Amit, who warned against the dismissal of legal gatekeepers. He wrote that removing such individuals could undermine one of the most critical safeguards for the rule of law. He expressed concern about how the civil service might function if officials feared that independent decisions could lead to their termination.

This ongoing dispute reflects deeper tensions within the Israeli government over the balance between political authority and legal independence. As the conflict continues, it raises important questions about the role of legal advisers and the integrity of the judicial system.