Liz Karni Law Firm

Liz Karni Law Firm is a leading boutique law office specializing in family and inheritance law. The firm was founded by Adv. Liz Karni over a decade ago and it provides its clients with top-notch legal services with personal guidance provided by Adv. Karni herself from beginning to end.
Liz Karni Law Firm handles all issues and related to family and inheritance law and provides its clients, inter alia, with legal services in fields of marriage, divorce, complex economic issues of property, alimony, wife and children, custody and visitation arrangements and wills and inheritances. Over the years, the firm has recorded impressive legal achievements, including a ruling that constitutes a halacha in which the Rabbinical Court ruled (in accordance with rulings of civil courts) that the determining date for calculating options is exercise date and not date of the rupture.

Adv. Liz Karni – Founder and Owner

Adv. Liz Karni is known as a determined and combative lawyer. She has been working opposite first-class lawyers for 18 years and personally represents her clients faithfully throughout the entire process, while providing comprehensive support until the successful conclusion of legal proceedings. She gained her professional experience in the leading firms in family inheritance law in Israel, and in 2012, established her own office with aim of providing clients with professional, dedicated and thorough service. In addition to ongoing professional work, she serves, among other things, as vice chairperson of the Wills, Inheritance and Estates Committee of the Israel Bar Association for the past five years, and even lectures at the Israel Bar Association’s conferences.

Legal Services of Uncompromising Quality

Liz Carney Law Firm offers its clients legal services of uncompromising quality while providing dedicated and discreet personal guidance in its areas of expertise. The firm has vast professional experience in matters related to drafting complex agreements, many of them of the top decile, as well as in inheritance law, where it provides professional advice and guidance in complex legal proceedings, including objections to wills, inheritance orders, and probate orders.

Selected Cases

The husband received half of his wife’s total options - The firm represented a husband in a related divorce lawsuit filed against him in rabbinical court in his area of residence. As part of the proceeding, the husband demanded to receive half of the total number of options that his wife received from a start-up company where she worked. In 2021, the company went public on TASE and the options’ value increased significantly. The main controversy arose in Rabbinical Court revolved around the question of what is the determining date for calculating options for distribution – the date of rupture (the date of submission of the request for dispute resolution) or the date of exercise (the date on which options will actually be exercised). The Regional Rabbinical Court ruled the value of options should be calculated for the date of the rupture, as at the time, the company was still private and had not yet been listed on the stock exchange. The meaning of the ruling was that the husband would receive options according to their low value - only 9,518 Dollars, which created a very significant gap in view of the surge in their value after the IPO. The firm filed an appeal against this ruling to Great Rabbinical Court and after a lengthy process which included complex hearings, appointing an expert and investigations, the appeal was accepted and the Great Rabbinical Court ruled determining date for calculating value of options for distribution is exercise date. The judgment, which was handed down in July 2024 and made public, is precedent-setting and significant, as it constitutes a change in approach of the Rabbinical Courts, in accordance with civil rulings regarding value of the date of distribution of options as part of divorce proceedings.
Mother moved her place of residence to north of the country, but the father’s home in the center will remain the center of the joint son’s life - In this case, the firm represented the father of a six-month-old toddler. The father and mother have lived in the center of the country for the past four years, and the mother, wished to move her place of residence to the north of the country, where her family lives and she works. The firm filed an application for an injunction preventing relocation of the minor’s place of residence and court granted request. After the decision prohibiting relocation of the minor’s place of residence to the north, the mother moved north and asked to maintain her time with the minor in her new place of residence. In its decision, court ruled that at this stage, the minor’s center of life will remain in the center of the country with the father and that the mother’s time with the minor will take place in the father’s home. Following this decision, the mother filed a request for a stay of execution and a request for leave to appeal. Her request was postponed and the mother was even charged with legal expenses. Later on, the appeal was also rejected in a judgment by the Honorable Justice Shohat, which was published.
Cancellation of a prenuptial agreement that does not match the actual value of the assets – The firm filed a lawsuit to cancel a prenuptial agreement on behalf of a woman who met her husband in 2009, when the latter was lacking means. Five years later, the husband made a significant exit when a high-tech company purchased a game he developed. After acquisition, the husband continued to work for the same company in a senior position and received many options. A few years ago, after birth of the couple’s fifth daughter, the husband signed a prenuptial agreement with the wife. Only one month later, the company went public, which significantly increased value of his options. As a result, the firm filed a lawsuit to cancel agreement with Family Court, and the case is still being deliberated.
A husband filed for divorce only one year before a prenuptial agreement with his wife was supposed to be annulled – Representation of a woman in a binding divorce claim filed against her by her husband: the parties made a prenuptial agreement in which it was determined that after 20 years agreement would be cancelled and all their joint property will be equally owned by both. The divorce claim on behalf of the husband was filed in the 19th year – only one year before date of cancellation of prenuptial agreement was supposed to take effect. The firm filed a claim for marital harmony on behalf of the woman. As part of the proceeding, the firm argued, inter alia, that intention of the parties when drafting prenuptial agreement was to create an extended period of time to share property, and that there is no material difference between 19th year and 20th year. Therefore, the agreement should be treated as if it had already been cancelled at that time. In hearing in the Rabbinical Court, the office’s position was accepted, and as a result, the husband erased his divorce claim. The practical significance of the decision was that the wife is entitled to half of the husband’s property. The decision led to a just result for the woman taking into account intention of the parties when drafting the prenuptial agreement.