Court ruling8/17/2026

Ombudsman Rejects Complaint Over Judge’s Literary Comparison

Judicial Complaints Ombudsman Asher Kula rejected a plaintiff’s complaint against a Magistrate’s Court judge who compared the construction and conduct of her lawsuit to the children’s book “Ayelet Metayelet.” The ombudsman viewed this style as part of judicial expression and independence, although the judge himself expressed regret over the complainant’s feelings.

Key facts

•The complaint was rejected by Ombudsman Asher Kula
•The complaint concerned a Magistrate’s Court judge
•The book’s title is “Ayelet Metayelet”
•The case number is not specified in the source
•The date of the decision is not specified in the source
•No monetary sums are mentioned in the article

What Prompted the Complaint

In his decision, the Magistrate’s Court judge quoted Rinat Hoffer’s children’s book “Ayelet Metayelet.” Using the literary image, he explained that overloading the proceedings and adding unnecessary elements did not help the claim but harmed it, the court’s resources, and the other parties. The plaintiff considered the chosen language and comparisons mocking and humiliating.

What the Ombudsman Decided

Judicial Complaints Ombudsman, retired judge Asher Kula, rejected the complaint. He stated that judges may refer in their decisions to literature and poetry, including works for children. A judicial decision serves as a way to present the judge’s impression of the proceedings and substantiate the conclusions, so restricting such expression could affect the foundation of judicial independence and the duty to provide reasons for a decision in accordance with the law.

The Boundary of What Is Permissible

According to the ombudsman’s position, intervention in the style of a judicial decision should be restrained and limited to exceptional cases involving a clear and obvious insult to a person. This case does not fall into that category. At the same time, the court must consider people’s individual characteristics, the circumstances of the case, and the parties’ possible sensitivities both when conducting the proceedings and when writing the decision.

The Judge’s Response

The judge explained that he had not intended to ridicule the plaintiff: the quotation was meant to convey clearly the conclusion reached after analyzing the evidence. He expressed regret over the complainant’s feelings. Going forward, the judge decided, as a precaution, to use quotations from children’s literature only for a theoretical analysis of a legal question or to illustrate a general factual situation.

What this means for you

Unusual, ironic, or literary wording in a judicial decision does not in itself constitute a disciplinary violation. Intervention by the ombudsman requires an exceptional case involving a clear and obvious insult, but judges are expected to be attentive to the parties’ sensitivities and the circumstances of the particular dispute.

Find a lawyer for this topic

Case analysis based on court rulings