LEGAL ACHIEVEMENTS & PRECEDENTS

We had a client over 80, who was injured during a ride on public transportation. After testing the case, we felt the initial compensation offered by insurance company was less than the client deserved. As a result of our hard work, after a few months the client won a compensation higher than 800% of the initial sum that was offered to her.

A client came to us with a request to present a defense in a small claims case. Our opinion was that due to the complexity of the case, it was not suitable for small claims court in the first place, but as the Plaintiff decided to go that route, our client needed a good defense. We managed to win the case, that is, we convinced the judge that the case could not or should not be decided in that court or at least that the case had no merit to continue and so it was decided. After a long period, the author of the case submitted a request to the court to reactivate the case, about a year after the verdict. The client contacted us again and we had to provide an explicit response including case law and extensive explanations, because, in our opinion, one should not agree to reopen the case. The court has evaluated our response to the plaintiff's request and ruled that the plaintiff has no right to continue with the same matter and/or reopen the same complaint – all without the need for a hearing. This is a legal achievement that avoided a huge expense for our client.

Against our client, a lawsuit was filed for a declarative judgment that also asked that the client admit to not giving true testimony in another hearing at court. Already in the early stages, we claimed that the subject is one of the most exceptional cases justifying the deletion of the lawsuit in the initial stage, before a statement of defense is submitted on behalf of the defendant client. We petitioned a few argumentized applications including a judicial study, and at the end we convinced the court that indeed the case was an extreme instance of where one could deny from the prosecutor his basic right to have his day in court.

In 2014, a bankruptcy case was filed by our client’s ex-wife. In 2020, our client was sued by the government’s lawyers representing the creditors. In less than two years, after a few hearings, we finally reached an agreement where my client paid only a small part of the total debt. The total debt was more than 600,000 shekels, but our client paid only 50,000 shekels and will never be submitted to any other debt from the previous marriage. He can now have a clean start, debt-free.

For many of us non Hebrew speaking people navigating the waters in Israel can be difficult. When I got into problems with a business I started in Israel, debts piled up and i was in trouble. Tzvi lead the charge in sorting this out. He negotiated on my behalf with each party and was able to reach settlements with all parties. I felt that for once I was talking to someone who 'apart from the law' could tell me plainly how the system worked and critically his rough estimates of the likely settlement amounts were accurate. Tzvi is someone you can trust R.F

A new immigrant who became entangled in Israel with a deceitful act by his business partner. The new immigrant had to leave Israel and left behind large debts – a stay of exit order was imposed on him immediately after he left. The client turned to us to straighten his problem with the creditors. Since he couldn't declare bankruptcy because it wasn't made possible, the only possibility (without going back to Israel) was to manage the numerous cases (execution) with the creditors- especially the banks. At the end, the office reached a settlement with the creditors and the debt was reduced from over a million and a half shekels to a total amount of NIS 200,000 and all limitations and procedures that were imposed on the client were cancelled.

In the last years, we were able to take care of tens of debtors' cases, part of which and not an insignificant amount prevented the debtor from leaving Israel, didn't allow the debtors to conduct a normal life and for some brought the client (mostly new immigrants) into instances that prevented the "emigrant" from abroad to come back to Israel. Our office dealt with intensive negotiation of the debts and cumulatively millions of shekels, not less, were saved. It seems that negotiation of reducing the debt is a special sort of skill, and our office has been specialized in this in the last few years.

A precedential judgement in Jerusalem District Court was petitioned for the client, a request for granting a receivership order in the framework of a bankruptcy file (according to the law preceding a new law going into effect on 15.9.19). In the first hearing that took place according to the law, 18 months following the Administrator General and the Official Receiver order, both the special appointee lawyer to represent the State and the receiver brought up questions and had doubts about the applicant's credibility (claims relating to the innocence of the applicant), as well as many other claims regarding his conducting in the bankruptcy case. Our office didn't back down and contested all the false claims in an obstinate fashion, until finally with no need for further hearing (despite being set up), the Official Receiver and the special appointee lawyer both agreed to give the applicant an immediate discharge, and he was discharged without having to pay more than the twenty payments he made during the proceeding.

A client of the office who is in a bankruptcy process, asked the court to decide the amount of child support he is required to pay during the proceeding. The family court ruled 5 years ago in his case, that he has to pay NIS 6,000 a month. This amount was paid during 4 years, until the client started his bankruptcy case. After several requests and responds by the debtor (the client), his ex-wife, the special administrator (the trustee) and The Administrator General and the Official Receiver, the honorable bankruptcy court got convinced that the appropriate payment was enforced for the entire bankruptcy process and it should be NIS 2,800 and no more, and that was the ruling.

In the period of 07/2019, a client asked our office to declare bankruptcy. After many hearings and procedures, that also included the state's objection to allow her to manage her businesses as a self-employed, and despite the special appointee's (the Commissioner's) objection to enable continuous "low" payments according to his version (monthly payment that every bankrupt person pays to the creditors' debt), the court agreed to our stand and gave the client a discharge in 01/2021- only a year and a half after beginning the procedures.

A debtor, against whom execution proceedings of the Law Enforcement and Collection System Authority (לשכת הוצאה לפועל - רשות האכיפה והגבייה) are conducted all over the country in sums of hundreds of thousands of shekels, came to our office. That client said he was offered to file for bankruptcy due to large debts of hundreds of thousands of shekels dispersed over forty files, 28 of which were active. After we checked it out in an encompassing manner, it turned out the client had left Israel and had been living abroad before he made the supposed debts and found out he "owed" the large sums only 15 years later, while trying to renew his Israeli passport abroad and was turned down. A thorough inquiry that we made, showed that the debtor's identity was forged by a gang whose members were convicted and imprisoned for these crimes (forgery). In light of this, it was decided to make objections in all files and in some of them we conducted many proceedings. After two years of hearings at courts, including the Supreme Court and the Law Enforcement and Collection System Authority, all debts and files were closed and the debtor never paid anything for the Law Enforcement and Collection System Authority cases.

Our office represented a couple in a bankruptcy case. From the start our argument was approved accepted, according to which the procedures against them should be examined in view of them being "a couple" to which the community property law applies. Our main claim was that their debts should be deemed one unit, thus despite the objections of the Administrator General and the Official Receiver. After long discussions, with continuous legal claims and precedential judgement/ruling, the district court decided to accept our claim and give a discharge to the woman (the wife) from all of her debts, thus without being declared a bankrupt person.

When our client approach us for the first time, asking for assistance with Bituach Leumi, we were uncertain and didn't know if we could win the case because the process had started before our intervention and was not professionally done.   There were some hearings (in the Bituach Leumi committee), we had the client's full cooperation, many forms and documentation were needed, but the result was the best possible and the client managed to achieve what she wanted, receiving all her rights by law.   We wish the customer good health and are happy for her and proud of our performance.

We represented a mother of several children, an Israeli citizen with an additional nationality, in respect of whom it was claimed that she fled from the country in the middle of the night with her children, despite a stay of exit order against the children. After long deliberations before the Rabbinical Courts, we were able to prove that my client's leaving with the children was done legally and that she had an honest and truthful fear for their safety, in light of suspicions of the father hurting the children. The Rabbinical Court accepted our claims, so that according to the Jewish Law, on which we based our claims, as well as the Civil Law, in fact during their leaving of Israel, there was no impediment for their exiting from the country and thus the counterparty's arguments of "child abduction" and for returning of them were denied.

Against our client it was claimed that her leaving Israel with her minor children without the father's knowledge, constitutes an abduction according to The Hague Convention and the act is a civil wrong. The father is suing our client in damages claim of more than a million (1,000,000!) shekels, because of general and mental damages caused by her actions, according to him. After hearings where opinions were brought and after legal arguments, it was proved that my client's actions didn't constitute a civil wrong that allows a right to compensation, and even if they did, after our inquiries of the expert, it was proved that it was about a report that was invalid and unprofessional (although it was seemingly conducted by a psychiatrist) and in the report there are flaws that require its cancellation. The lawsuit against our client was dismissed!

Our office represented a man that was being sued by his ex-wife. The subject is of a couple that lived together, despite not being married and not having children in common. Both spouses had assets, rights and obligations from the period preceding their cohabitation, and they accumulated property and obligations after starting their common life. After a few years of living together, they had an agreement where they wanted to ensure each party's rights and the certainty that they won't be sued for debts and obligations of the other partner. After a few years, the woman sued our client, where she wanted half of the property and the rights in the man's name. Her claims against the prenuptial agreement were that it wasn't legally authorized, and even if it was about a legal agreement, the conditions thereof were forced on her. After many hearings, long inquiries and many witnesses, the family court accepted our client's claims that the subject is a valid agreement, since the provisions of the Property Relations between Spouses Law don't apply to it, because the couple wasn't married. As for the claims of coercion and threats, it was proven that the agreement doesn't deprive the rights of either party, and that in fact the provisions were worded as such that the plaintiff received in the agreement rights that she didn't have beforehand, and that the parties relied on commitments in the agreement and that dishonoring them would miss the purpose of the agreement which, as stated, was decided being legal and binding. The outcomes of the proceeding were that our client won, the woman's lawsuit was dismissed and the court accepted the entire claims of our client.

A client asked us to represent her in a criminal case related to harassment and threats made to her boyfriend. At the beginning of the hearings, the DA requested, due to the seriousness of the infraction in its opinion, the imposition of an effective prison sentence on our client – not less than be sent behind bars. Although the serious indictment was amended and even "softened" in accordance with our demand after a legal battle, the DA insisted on the imposition of an effective prison sentence. The client underwent an interrogation (investigation) with a probation officer who made non-positive recommendations for our client. After an argument and exchange of legal arguments between me and the prosecutors and after all attempts to reach a plea agreement-bargain, the honorable judge was forced to draw up a ruling/verdict. The verdict was written at the same hour, without the presence of the parties. It was decided that my client would not be sentenced to prison, and was given a lighter sentence in a total of 150 hours of community service and, to the dismay of the prosecution and at my request, as I argued before the judge, the client was not convicted and would not have a criminal record.

We represented a father who was alleged to assaulting his grown-up daughter. After tests and inquiries that were taken, we were able to prove during the hearing that no assault took place, and that it was actually an incitement due to a family dispute that was going on. As stated, the Attorney's Office accepted our side and claims and no indictment was submitted, the police file was closed as well as the Social Services case.

Our office represented a father accused of assaulting his young son. After tests and inquiries that we made, we proved to the criminal Attorney's Office in a hearing that it never happened, and that the accusations were a result of misunderstanding of those who reported (the educational institution didn't understand the language of the child- a foreign language speaker), and after a hearing before the indictment submission, we were able to convince the Attorney's Office that it would be in the best interest of both the minor and the family.

A couple that came to our office had an indictment hanging over them because of a mutual assault. Due to the special circumstances of the incident, there was a possibility of reaching a plea bargain without conviction. After receiving the investigative materials and considering the fact that they were normative spouses that loved one another and had no criminal record, we chose a different strategy aiming to cancel the indictments altogether. After vast activities we managed to get the Attorney's Office to cancel the indictments and virtually on the day of the hearing, the spouses were free to start a new chapter in their lives without a criminal record.

On 09/19/2019, we accepted a new case from a client who, after having tried with another lawyer to recognize his Brazilian diploma (BA) in Israel and having his request denied, sought us out for an appeal in the small supreme court of justice in Israel (Bagatz Katan or Beit Mishpat le Inianim Minaliim). We decided not to appeal but to reconstruct the case. Yesterday (06/07/2021) after a lot of work including in front of the Brazilian Ministry of Education, our client received full recognition of his diploma in the State of Israel.

Our firm represented a husband in a divorce case both in the Civil and the Rabbinic Court. The woman, among other claims, filed a claim to receive her KETUBAH* for a total of about NIS 200,000. After a careful examination of the case, in the light of Halacha, we believed that the woman did not have the right to receive her KETUBAH. On the other hand, the woman's lawyers believed that she was entitled to the full amount of her KETUBAH. After a legal battle in the framework of which we conducted a procedure of investigating the parties, we succeeded in undermining the woman's claims. And on the recommendation of the rabbinic court, the parties were referred to a polygraph test according to Halacha and civil law. After a summary of claims, a verdict was given in which we won the case for our client. The husband's claim that the wife is not entitled to her KETUBAH at all was accepted. It has been proven once again that proper and professional representation and mutual trust between the client and the lawyers, as happened in this case, is a key to success.   * A Ketubah is a marriage contract that Jewish law requires a groom to provide for his bride on their wedding day. It is intended to protect the woman, primarily by establishing the man's financial obligations to her in case of divorce or widowhood.

Our office received representation from several brothers against a ruling regarding a will after the death of the testatrix. This was a process including hundreds of pages and two different wills - not just one heir, but many different heirs. After a litigation with a lawyer who, by the way, did not do his job properly, we were unable to reach an agreement, therefore we started legal proceedings. After less than half a year, a court decision was given and we obtained a significant refund to our clients from the lawyer who had to return the funds he had collected from bank accounts of the deceased and also presented a detailed account of all funds and their distribution so that we could audit the accounts and finish recording the apartments inherited in the name of the heirs.

Lately, a hearing where our office won after rendering a ruling which rejected a woman's lawsuit to get more than half the rights in the house, was finished. The office proved that the woman's claims that she gave more than half the money are unfounded. The woman claimed that after the marriage of the parties over 30 years ago, her parents gave her a total of tens of thousands of liras, while the husband being represented by us didn't contribute anything. After a long trial, we were able to prove that no surplus money was given, after checks and calculations we managed to prove that in view of converting from Israeli lira to shekel and new shekel and converting the amount into dollars, there is no surplus contribution. It was also ruled in favor of our client, that even if such contribution was proven, in light of the years that have passed, the registration of the assets and the way of life, common property is in question. In the explained ruling, the court stated the special character of a residential apartment and charged the counterparty for the high costs.

Our office represented a man that was being sued by his ex-wife. The subject is of a couple that lived together, despite not being married and not having children in common. Both spouses had assets, rights and obligations from the period preceding their cohabitation, and they accumulated property and obligations after starting their common life. After a few years of living together, they had an agreement where they wanted to ensure each party's rights and the certainty that they won't be sued for debts and obligations of the other partner. After a few years, the woman sued our client, where she wanted half of the property and the rights in the man's name. Her claims against the prenuptial agreement were that it wasn't legally authorized, and even if it was about a legal agreement, the conditions thereof were forced on her. After many hearings, long inquiries and many witnesses, the family court accepted our client's claims that the subject is a valid agreement, since the provisions of the Property Relations between Spouses Law don't apply to it, because the couple wasn't married. As for the claims of coercion and threats, it was proven that the agreement doesn't deprive the rights of either party, and that in fact the provisions were worded as such that the plaintiff received in the agreement rights that she didn't have beforehand, and that the parties relied on commitments in the agreement and that dishonoring them would miss the purpose of the agreement which, as stated, was decided being legal and binding. The outcomes of the proceeding were that our client won, the woman's lawsuit was dismissed and the court accepted the entire claims of our client.

Lately our office won in a proceeding where we represented a woman that was sued by her ex-husband. In this special case, the ex-husband claimed that the ex-wife caused him not to be in touch with his children. The uniqueness of this case was that he was suing within a damage claim for a huge sum. This suit was being conducted like a damage claim, while the divorced man, the plaintiff, claims that the cost of his damages is more than a million shekels. In this complex case, we proved using know-how that was obtained by the office in the field of family and torts laws (more than 50 years of experience), that actually our client had interest in the existence or relations between the father and his children. We claimed that even if trust and relations no longer exist, indeed the plaintiff's evasion from being in touch caused a burden on our client's shoulders so to stop her from moving up in her work, starting a new relationship, and in fact the difficulty of raising children all by herself rested on her. The claim that his handling and avoiding a proper contact with his children, or in general, are applicable to the legal concept of "contributory fault", as such that by his own actions, the plaintiff brought on himself the distancing of his children and in a way that the stated contributory fault reached 100% of the damage claimed by the plaintiff, was also accepted. Another claim that was approved that has its roots in the law of torts, was that there wasn't any proof of any relation between my client's acts and the distancing of the plaintiff from his children, and as a result of this, there is no proof of any relation between the damage claimed (the huge amount) and the actions claimed. At the end of the hearing, the case against the woman we represented was dismissed.

Our office represented a woman in a divorce case. The main point of the dispute between the parties was the custody of two minor children (aged 4-6). Her main concern was that if the father's claim for joint custody was accepted, then the child support would be stopped (as a result of a new Supreme Court ruling), so actually she won't be able to continue to sustain and maintain a life standard they were used to giving the children. After we clarified that the plaintiff is a worthy person and there is no reason to prevent from him extensive visitation with his son, we decided to turn to the Rabbinical Court for its decision. And as we expected and thought, his claim was accepted in the court, for according to the Jewish Law, you can't exempt a father from paying alimony even if there are extensive visitations and extensive stays. This case indicates the need in referring to expertise representation in the field of family laws, because the client was concerned about going to a religious court because of "rumors and stories" she had heard.

We represented a mother of several children, an Israeli citizen with an additional nationality, in respect of whom it was claimed that she fled from the country in the middle of the night with her children, despite a stay of exit order against the children. After long deliberations before the Rabbinical Courts, we were able to prove that my client's leaving with the children was done legally and that she had an honest and truthful fear for their safety, in light of suspicions of the father hurting the children. The Rabbinical Court accepted our claims, so that according to the Jewish Law, on which we based our claims, as well as the Civil Law, in fact during their leaving of Israel, there was no impediment for their exiting from the country and thus the counterparty's arguments of "child abduction" and for returning of them were denied.

We represented inheritors in an opposition case, where it was claimed that the deceased's check wasn't honored (sum of hundreds of thousands of shekels). After long hearings that included a graphological opinion and investigation of many witnesses, we were able to prove our side by claiming that during the deceased's signing of the check, she wasn't in fact legally fit to sign and be obligated, and therefore her estate was discharged from the obligation as well.

We represented a father who was alleged to assaulting his grown-up daughter. After tests and inquiries that were taken, we were able to prove during the hearing that no assault took place, and that it was actually an incitement due to a family dispute that was going on. As stated, the Attorney's Office accepted our side and claims and no indictment was submitted, the police file was closed as well as the Social Services case.

Our office represented a father accused of assaulting his young son. After tests and inquiries that we made, we proved to the criminal Attorney's Office in a hearing that it never happened, and that the accusations were a result of misunderstanding of those who reported (the educational institution didn't understand the language of the child- a foreign language speaker), and after a hearing before the indictment submission, we were able to convince the Attorney's Office that it would be in the best interest of both the minor and the family.

Our client demanded cancelling a gift of an apartment for his daughter. Despite the fact that the procedure of the registration of the apartment in the daughter's name having been done, and against her claim of a completed gift, we convinced the court with evidence and vast ruling, that actually the subject was the transfer of the apartment to the daughter in trust for her father, and therefore it was decided that he was entitled to go back on his decision despite the completion of the registration, and so the ruling was the apartment being registered back in our client's name.

We received a client who had been represented by a number of lawyers, without her affairs in conjunction with her ex-husband being finished. As part of the proceedings, the ex-husband petitioned for custody of the minor child and alternatively to move from Jerusalem to the central region. After conducting proceedings, we were able to prove that the subject was a "serial plaintiff" who doesn't stop harassing with constant actions, and there is nothing in his attempts to get custody or visitation. The court cautioned the petitioner not to continue with idle proceedings, so that he will not be blocked in an unusual way from submitting claims.

We received a client after she was ordered in a ruling to pay her ex-husband a sum of over NIS 450,000 as compensation for declining to complete the divorce process. After a look at the ruling and a check of other subjects relevant to the couple, we appealed against the ruling at the District Court. At the court, we claimed that the problem was disproportionate amounts regarding the court's ruling, while we outlined to the court a long list of rulings that were relevant and a presentation of studies on the subject. As well, our claims were accepted that in this case there was room to consider leniency because of the special circumstances. As stated, the District Court granted the appeal and reduced over NIS 300,000 from the compensation amount.

Lately the office won a proceeding where we represented a woman who was being petitioned in an attempt to reduce alimony. The subject was a procedure where an agreement was signed a few years ago, in a framework where joint custody and child alimony were settled. After three years approximately, the father (the counterparty) petitioned the reducing of alimony, basing his claim on the Supreme Court rule (Family Petition to Appeal 919/15), the joint custody and a decrease in his salary; in respect of all of these he claimed for reducing the alimony. At the trial, all the woman's claims were approved, by means of no proof in any circumstantial change essentially warranting court intervention, our claim was approved that the court not only examines actual earnings, but also earning capacity and the court will generally not intervene, especially in a case where it was agreed on alimony based on a comprehensive divorce agreement (for the agreement might have included other concessions that influenced alimony agreement). It is to be noted that in the circumstances of the matter and beyond the letter of the law, the counterparty wasn't required to pay court costs.

We received a client who wanted to be appointed a guardian for the body and property of a "sheltered person" (somebody not able to make independent decisions). Even though the sheltered person has a father living abroad, the office convinced the court and the Attorney General that it benefits the sheltered person to appoint our client as a guardian of the sheltered person, despite not being a relative of his.

Lately our office dealt with an application of a foreign citizen, an adult allegedly living in Brazil with his biological father, claiming to be an Israeli citizen and therefore requested us to petition for him an Israeli citizenship status, being an Israeli's son. They had a valid document according to Brazilian law, which we received for notarial translation (an original birth certificate). On the certificate there was an apostille attached, according to Hague Convention rules of which Israel and Brazil were fellow members. The apostille was carried out by the Convention's rules in three languages: English, Portuguese and French. Our office translated the birth certificate into Hebrew. However, the state's representatives insisted in an incomprehensible manner to get also a translation of the apostille into Hebrew. A proceeding on this matter was conducted before the family court, where they claimed that in question is a demand that wasn't reasonable and not meeting the principles of Hague Convention, and we also brought many legal sources for our claims. After discussions, the court approved our stand and ordered the state of Israel to accept the document the way it was submitted by us, without a translation.

Insistence until receiving the desirable judgement. Recently, our office has conducted an uncompromising legal battle in Tel-Aviv family court regarding a fatherhood case. The Attorney-General opposed for different and even unusual reasons, to allow a DNA test to be carried out. The parties argued even outside of court, until the Attorney General's representatives finally gave their approval for the DNA test to be carried out, which will take place overseas through the consular services (the son lives abroad). Our office didn't find it fit to compromise, and eventually the judgement was clear that the test had to be carried out unquestioningly.

Lately, our office had a petition from a foreign national, an adult who lives in Brazil with his biological father, as he claims, who is allegedly an Israeli citizen and therefore he asked us to apply for him Israeli citizenship, being the son of an Israeli. They had no documents except for the father's I.D. number. Our office conducted investigation in order to base the father's claim of Israeli citizenship, and afterwards we decided to sue for fatherhood's recognition for the son at the Israeli family court. Since the applicants are living abroad and because of different limitations they couldn't come to Israel, we petitioned for the fatherhood DNA test to be carried out according to genetic test procedure abroad. Already in the first stages, the respondent (the State of Israel) tried to create problems and demanded the test of both biological parents in Brazil. Since the parents are no longer married and considering the mother's decline to a test, as well as the high costs of an additional test, our office managed to convince the court in an exceptional way, to deviate from the rule which obliges both parents to undergo a test, and after we expanded the pleas, we got a ruling in our favor in which the court would order the State of Israel to accept our claim and to settle for the father's test alone.

Lately our office won in a proceeding where we represented a woman that was sued by her ex-husband. In this special case, the ex-husband claimed that the ex-wife caused him not to be in touch with his children. The uniqueness of this case was that he was suing within a damage claim for a huge sum. This suit was being conducted like a damage claim, while the divorced man, the plaintiff, claims that the cost of his damages is more than a million shekels. In this complex case, we proved using know-how that was obtained by the office in the field of family and torts laws (more than 50 years of experience), that actually our client had interest in the existence or relations between the father and his children. We claimed that even if trust and relations no longer exist, indeed the plaintiff's evasion from being in touch caused a burden on our client's shoulders so to stop her from moving up in her work, starting a new relationship, and in fact the difficulty of raising children all by herself rested on her. The claim that his handling and avoiding a proper contact with his children, or in general, are applicable to the legal concept of "contributory fault", as such that by his own actions, the plaintiff brought on himself the distancing of his children and in a way that the stated contributory fault reached 100% of the damage claimed by the plaintiff, was also accepted. Another claim that was approved that has its roots in the law of torts, was that there wasn't any proof of any relation between my client's acts and the distancing of the plaintiff from his children, and as a result of this, there is no proof of any relation between the damage claimed (the huge amount) and the actions claimed. At the end of the hearing, the case against the woman we represented was dismissed.

Against our client it was claimed that her leaving Israel with her minor children without the father's knowledge, constitutes an abduction according to The Hague Convention and the act is a civil wrong. The father is suing our client in damages claim of more than a million (1,000,000!) shekels, because of general and mental damages caused by her actions, according to him. After hearings where opinions were brought and after legal arguments, it was proved that my client's actions didn't constitute a civil wrong that allows a right to compensation, and even if they did, after our inquiries of the expert, it was proved that it was about a report that was invalid and unprofessional (although it was seemingly conducted by a psychiatrist) and in the report there are flaws that require its cancellation. The lawsuit against our client was dismissed!

In person banking services are becoming less and less available. Clients now use apps in order to complete all banking services. A foreign man, living abroad, had a SIM card that was not Israeli. To complete any transactions through a banking app, one must receive an authorization code to their cell phone. Our client with a foreign SIM card was unable to receive this code. Therefore, he was blocked from completing any transactions. With our representation and intervention, we were able to convince the Israeli Federal Reserve Board to oblige the banks to change their system and give access to foreigners that hold a bank account in Israel. Now, clients of the bank who are living abroad are able to participate in online banking without having to purchase an Israeli SIM card.

Lately our office dealt with an application of a foreign citizen, an adult allegedly living in Brazil with his biological father, claiming to be an Israeli citizen and therefore requested us to petition for him an Israeli citizenship status, being an Israeli's son. They had a valid document according to Brazilian law, which we received for notarial translation (an original birth certificate). On the certificate there was an apostille attached, according to Hague Convention rules of which Israel and Brazil were fellow members. The apostille was carried out by the Convention's rules in three languages: English, Portuguese and French. Our office translated the birth certificate into Hebrew. However, the state's representatives insisted in an incomprehensible manner to get also a translation of the apostille into Hebrew. A proceeding on this matter was conducted before the family court, where they claimed that in question is a demand that wasn't reasonable and not meeting the principles of Hague Convention, and we also brought many legal sources for our claims. After discussions, the court approved our stand and ordered the state of Israel to accept the document the way it was submitted by us, without a translation.

For more than 15 years, our office is supporting a family which came to Israel from the former Soviet Union. When they arrived in Israel, they fell victims of a person who promised to "arrange their status in Israel", took all their documents and disappeared. Ever since, the family tried to arrange their stay in Israel unsuccessfully and even a decision to deport them was rendered. Recently, following battles and petitions at different courts, we were able to oblige the state to grant a female member of the family residential status in Israel, and soon she will be granted permanent status in the State of Israel.

For many years, our office has been supporting a client that came to Israel as an infant with her parents. After a number of years, the family was obliged by the Ministry of Interior to leave the State of Israel immediately, claiming that the family stays in Israel illegally and ever since, for more than a decade, the family's case has been represented by our office. Recently, after many complex legal battles including the strong opposition from the authorities, we were able to obtain for our client a temporary resident status till the final ruling in the coming months. This achievement occurred only after a number of petitions, legal deliberations and even the state's appeal against the decision at the Supreme Court ruling- was rejected. As a result of this achievement of ours, all of my client's rights in the National Insurance and other state institutions have been renewed.

Insistence until receiving the desirable judgement. Recently, our office has conducted an uncompromising legal battle in Tel-Aviv family court regarding a fatherhood case. The Attorney-General opposed for different and even unusual reasons, to allow a DNA test to be carried out. The parties argued even outside of court, until the Attorney General's representatives finally gave their approval for the DNA test to be carried out, which will take place overseas through the consular services (the son lives abroad). Our office didn't find it fit to compromise, and eventually the judgement was clear that the test had to be carried out unquestioningly.

Lately, our office had a petition from a foreign national, an adult who lives in Brazil with his biological father, as he claims, who is allegedly an Israeli citizen and therefore he asked us to apply for him Israeli citizenship, being the son of an Israeli. They had no documents except for the father's I.D. number. Our office conducted investigation in order to base the father's claim of Israeli citizenship, and afterwards we decided to sue for fatherhood's recognition for the son at the Israeli family court. Since the applicants are living abroad and because of different limitations they couldn't come to Israel, we petitioned for the fatherhood DNA test to be carried out according to genetic test procedure abroad. Already in the first stages, the respondent (the State of Israel) tried to create problems and demanded the test of both biological parents in Brazil. Since the parents are no longer married and considering the mother's decline to a test, as well as the high costs of an additional test, our office managed to convince the court in an exceptional way, to deviate from the rule which obliges both parents to undergo a test, and after we expanded the pleas, we got a ruling in our favor in which the court would order the State of Israel to accept our claim and to settle for the father's test alone.

Lately our office dealt with an application of a foreign citizen, an adult allegedly living in Brazil with his biological father, claiming to be an Israeli citizen and therefore requested us to petition for him an Israeli citizenship status, being an Israeli's son. They had a valid document according to Brazilian law, which we received for notarial translation (an original birth certificate). On the certificate there was an apostille attached, according to Hague Convention rules of which Israel and Brazil were fellow members. The apostille was carried out by the Convention's rules in three languages: English, Portuguese and French. Our office translated the birth certificate into Hebrew. However, the state's representatives insisted in an incomprehensible manner to get also a translation of the apostille into Hebrew. A proceeding on this matter was conducted before the family court, where they claimed that in question is a demand that wasn't reasonable and not meeting the principles of Hague Convention, and we also brought many legal sources for our claims. After discussions, the court approved our stand and ordered the state of Israel to accept the document the way it was submitted by us, without a translation.