Appendix 21 | Attorney Barak Leiser, Legal Counsel for the Administration of Courts, and a candidate for a judicial appointment
https://inproperinla.blogspot.com/2026/08/appendix-21-attorney-barak-leiser-legal.html
Index of Appendices and Biosketch, Joseph Zernik, PhD, LLB
https://inproperinla.blogspot.com/2026/07/appeal-for-review-of-rachel-ben-aris.html
Rachel Ben-Ari's competence as General Counsel - Appeal Filed with Prof. Uri Sivan, Technion President, and Prof. Daniel Chamovitz, Chair of VERA and Ben Gurion University President
https://inproperinla.blogspot.com/2026/07/2026-07-17-technion-israel-institute-of.html
Image | Attorney Barak Leiser, next to Judge Varda Alshech left, in a Knesset committee hearing in 2012. Attorney Barak Leiser and Ombudsman of the Judiciary Eliezer Goldberg achieved nothing short of a magic show.
---
I have been corresponding with Attorney Barak Leiser for some years, realizing his crucial position in determining the mode of operation of Net HaMishpat. In the Judge Hila Gurevitz--Attorney Rachel Ben-Ari affair he issued some remarkable opinionד, reflecting the philosophy behind Net HaMishpat.
As Legal Counsel of the Administration of the Courts, he is also accountable and probably has direct relationship to the opinions on legal matters issued by others in the Administration of the Courts, including in particular his own staff, e.g., Attorney Yehuda Yaish, and the Internal Audit department [see, Appendix 40 | Internal Audit of the Administration of the Courts].
1. Letter of March 19, 2025, in re: Attorney Ben-Ari's purported appointment as Estate Administrator, and distorted/corrupted entries in computerized systems
Translation
ADMINISTRATION OF COURTS
State of Israel
Office of the Legal Counsel
Date: 19 Adar 5785 / March 19, 2025
Ref: 4700-1011-2025-0000720
(Please cite this reference number in your reply)
To:
Dr. Yosef Zernik, Israel
Via Email: 123456xyz@gmail.com
Re: Response to your inquiries regarding Succession File (ת"ע) 11650-06-24
References:
Our response dated January 27, 2025
Your inquiry dated February 25, 2025
Our response dated March 2, 2025
Your additional inquiries dated March 6, 2025, March 12, 2025, and March 17, 2025
Dear Sir,
I hereby confirm receipt of your detailed inquiries dated March 6, 2025, March 12, 2025, and March 17, 2025, in which you presented additional claims, essentially identical to your previous inquiries, regarding the subject legal proceeding. I have carefully reviewed the totality of the claims raised in your inquiry, along with their aforementioned connection to topics already addressed in previous responses to you, and I found several aspects that warrant a focused response.
In your inquiry, you raised claims regarding ambiguity in the status of counsel in the file. It is clarified that the appointment of estate administrators is made in accordance with the provisions of the Succession Law, 5725-1965, and the relevant regulations, based on an explicit judicial decision. The court's decision is the authoritative source for the appointment, granting authority and procedural status to the estate administrators. Estate administrators act in accordance with court decisions and within the framework of powers granted to them by law. The title "Estate Administrator"—given to counsel—derives from their formal role as determined in the court's decision and does not indicate any irregularities in the proceeding.
Regarding your claim concerning the manner in which estate administrators are registered in the "Net HaMishpat" system: we note that Net HaMishpat system is a case management system. Technically, an option exists within Net HaMishpat to add an entity under the classification "Estate Administrator" in a proceeding. However, this option is generally not implemented in Net HaMishpat system due to technical difficulties that affect the ability of parties to act in the case. Defining counsel as an "Estate Administrator" can technically diminish their ability to perform actions as a representative in the digital system, given that an estate administrator possesses different powers than legal counsel.
The choice not to register an entity as an "Estate Administrator" in the Net HaMishpat system lies within the discretion of the judicial panels and the secretariats. It is important to emphasize that this choice does not affect the legal validity of the appointment of an estate administrator. The authority and status of estate administrators stem solely from the judicial decision that appointed them, not from registration or lack thereof in the computer system. The latter constitutes an administrative action that is not a condition for the validity of an appointment or the legal status of a party in the proceeding. Note that every judicial decision acquires legal force upon being lawfully signed by the panel, regardless of how it is presented in any computerized system.
Regarding your claims concerning case routing: as clarified in the previous response, case routing is conducted in accordance with court administrative procedures, and there is no basis for the claim of a flaw in case routing. Furthermore, claims regarding judicial disqualification or a panel's lack of authority to adjudicate a proceeding ought to be raised within the framework of the legal proceeding itself. It is also noted, for the avoidance of doubt, that Her Honor Judge H. Gurevitch Ovadia is authorized to adjudicate legal proceedings—and by virtue of this, she is authorized to adjudicate the proceedings to which you refer.
Regarding your request for "protection against criminality": although this request is insufficiently clear, I reiterate and clarify that the Administration of Courts is not authorized to intervene in judicial decisions or in the management of the legal proceeding itself. Claims regarding the content of judicial decisions, the manner of managing the proceeding, or the fitness of the judicial panel—insofar as there are any—must be raised within the framework of legal proceedings using procedural tools. Nor does the Administration of Courts have the authority to order a stay of proceedings.
Before concluding, we reiterate that offensive, defamatory, and abusive remarks directed at judicial panels must be completely avoided. We clarify unequivocally that it is vital to adhere to respectful and objective language in your communications; if you continue in this style, your inquiries will not receive a response.
It appears that the above provides a response to your inquiries.
Respectfully,
(Signed)
Barak Laser, Adv.
Original Hebrew
/
Adv. Leiser’s assertion that a registry can be manipulated to provide flexibility to preferred actors would be treated as an immediate, severe corporate crime within any commercial infrastructure. During these court proceedings, I raised this precise structural analogy directly with Adv. Rachel Ben-Ari—who historically served as the Chair of the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors of New 2 Corporation. I demanded she state what her response would have been as an Audit Chair if a Chief Executive Officer informed her that they had hired a new Chief Financial Officer, but deliberately chose not to register him in the corporate books in order to "provide him more flexibility," and that his ongoing million-shekel financial transactions were alternately recorded under the names of entirely unrelated individuals.
Under the Companies Law, such conduct constitutes deliberate ledger falsification, corporate fraud, and a total breach of fiduciary duty. Yet, it is this exact model of fraudulent bookkeeping that Adv. Ben-Ari, Judge Gurevitz, and Adv. Barak Leiser are actively utilizing within the Haifa Family Court to execute a predatory estate extraction entirely hidden from a valid, uniform state registry.
