In response to January 17's post, an alert reader who wishes to remain anonymous pointed out that part of 8(d) of the APAI's "code of ethics" would seem to preclude an Israeli patent practitioner from listing himself an a "applicant of convenience" on a PCT application.
For the uninitiated, an "applicant of convenience" is most commonly used when either (a) none of the actual applicants are from a PCT member state, and therefore there's no way to get the PCT application filed, or (b) there's at least one applicant from a PCT member state, but not from a member state that will facilitate using the PCT Search Authority of interest.
Prior to 1996, when Israel joined the PCT, situation (a) was quite common in Israel: Israeli applicants wishing to avail themselves of the PCT would assign their rights in some irrelevant jurisdiction to their foreign patent counsel in the USA or Europe, who would then file the PCT listing themselves as the applicant for the irrelevant jurisdiction only, and listing the Israeli applicant as applicant for everywhere else. See, e.g. WO 1997/002439.
Situtation (b) still sometimes arises, for example if an Israeli entity wants its search done by ROSPAT or KIPO, which costs less than having the search done by the Israel PTO, the EPO or in the USA, the three PCT Search Authorities available to Israelis. If the Israeli entity's agent is a US citizen, for example, then the Israeli entity will make the agent the applicant for an irrelevant jurisdiction, thus obtaining the ability have ROSPAT or KIPO do the search.
Apparently members of the APAI who engage in this practice would be considered persona non grata by the association. Which is why it's a good thing that that organization's "code of ethics" doesn't have the force of law.