Lawyer & Founder
Varda Haklai Law Firm
View ProfileVarda Haklai
About Varda Haklai Law Firm
Varda Haklai Law Firm is a leading boutique firm specializing in family and inheritance laws - divorces, inheritance and estates, nuptial agreements, alimony and child support, custody, mediations and more. The firm has been active for over 30 years, representing key players in the Israeli economy - CEOs of companies and organizations and senior officials and executives in the fields of medicine, defense forces, finance, business, etc.
Expertise and Dominance in the Family Law Practice Area
Adv. Haklai, the firm’s founder and owner, is a well-known and esteemed lawyer in the field of family law, respected by clients, judges and rabbinical court dayanim.
Adv. Varda Haklai
She was admitted into the Israel Bar Association in 1982, founded her firm in 1985 and certified as a mediator in 2000. In addition to litigation in legal disputes, Adv. Haklai also conducts mediation proceedings in conflict resolution and drafts prenuptial and divorce agreements. During her years of professional practice, Adv. Haklai trained many lawyers in family law, among them, are lawyers who have since been appointed judges and are currently serving in the courts. The law firm includes a professional, skilled and experienced team of lawyers, assisting her in providing clients with professional, effective and purposeful legal consult.
Proficiency and Knowledge in Tangent Law Fields
As an inseparable part of her professional specialization in family law, Adv. Haklai acquired skills and knowledge in tangential legal spheres such as corporate law, real estate law and civil-commercial law, and she manages the cases and is personally and directly involved in them. Owing to these capabilities, Adv. Haklai is able to leverage her clients’ rights in divorce proceedings, or when resolving disputes in inheritance and large and complex estate cases.
Adv. Haklai demonstrates uncompromising determination in protecting her clients’ rights. This determination led to significant triumphs in the legal sphere. Over the years, Adv. Haklai managed to reach groundbreaking legal achievements and precedents, which outlined court practices:
The Barel ruling (LCA 4358/01 Barel v Barel in the Supreme Court) - This verdict was a direct result of Adv. Haklai’s persistence on her client’s right to oppose her husband’s demands to selling their family home with no connection to applying an overall equitable division of property, including all their other joint property. The ruling paved the way for the practice of whereby dismantling the partnership in the home is part of the equitable division of property, so as to enable an overall view of all the joint property and allow the ‘weak party’ to exercise all their rights to the property. This 2001 ruling is still the basis of many court rulings today.
Jerusalem Family Court Ruling - In which the court ordered to cancel a part of the divorce agreement signed by the couple, after it was proven that the husband concealed information from his wife about the existence of a Swiss bank account in his name, containing hundreds of thousands of dollars, despite an explicit clause in the divorce agreement in which each of the parties allegedly waived all rights managed by the other party’s name, known or unknown (AC 18418-08-10 of September 1, 2013).
Ruling by the Ramat Gan Family Court - The court rejected a lawsuit by a woman against her divorced husband, filed 15 years after the divorce, in which she petitioned for recognition of her rights to half of the stock options given to her ex-husband a year after they divorced, and which vested near the date of the lawsuit with a value of NIS millions. The court rejected her claim that the shares were given to her ex-husband thanks to his many devoted years of work for the company, during their marriage. The court accepted Adv. Haklai’s argument that the shares were unknown at the time of the divorce, and were given to him after the divorce was finalized, as an incentive to keep working for the company in the future. The court ruled that a partner’s rights to the other’s career assets must have been clearly acquired during the marriage. (AC 51791/04 of August 17, 2009).
Ruling given by the Haifa Court - In which a former partner attempted to exploit the statutory registration of rights in an apartment that was jointly registered in both partners’ names (50%-50%), by accident. After a long and complex legal trial, the court ruled that, as claimed by Adv. Haklai, the real rights of the parties were 75%-25%, and that the former partner’s attempts to claim otherwise verged on the exploitation of the proper legal proceedings in bad faith (AC 41007-07-10 of May 19, 2013).
Ruling by the Tel Aviv District Family Court - Which was a precedent-setting at the time, in which the court canceled the father’s liability to child support for his 14-year-old son, after many years of attempts made by the father and the welfare authorities to initiate a relationship between him and his son. The proceedings were conducted with maximum sensitivity to the father’s painful situation, who expressed his wishes for a normal relationship with his son. In the ruling, the court blamed the mother for her responsibility, and for coming between the father and his son. The court also ordered a reduction of child support for a fixed period, during which the mother and child could change their alienating behavior towards the father, ruling that if the lack of engagement remains the child support would stop completely, in an attempt to repair the parental connection (AC 50547-05-10 of January 11, 2012).
Ruling given by the Rabbinical High Court on January 6, 2016 - In which the Rabbinical High Court upheld a district court ruling binding a husband to a NIS 360,000 marriage contract (“Ktuba”), despite all his claims against the wife (who was Adv. Haklai’s client), that he is mentally ill and was thrown out of the house by the wife. The court accepted Adv. Haklai’s arguments and ruled that it was the husband that caused the split, and therefore owed the sum from the marriage contract (Case 1024191/1).
You may also like