In the amended statement of claim, the plaintiffs claimed that "to the best of their recollection" they had paid Goren a fee for the representation and legal handling of the transaction, and that the relocation of the Goren hearing venue told them that he would handle the legal matters of the transaction together with the transfer of the Goren hearing venue (paragraph 14 of the amended statement of claim). In the reply, the plaintiffs added that their claim that Goren's place of hearing was transferred to represent them was born against the background of a discourse that was exchanged between their counsel and the transfer of Goren's hearing place "in an attempt to settle the dispute outside the walls of court" (paragraph 6 of the reply). However, apart from the fact that it was not appropriate to reflect in writing the content of the negotiations between the parties' counsel that was exchanged outside the court, the plaintiffs further claimed once again that to the best of their recollection they paid Goren's attorney's fees for the representation in the transaction (ibid., ibid.). In the hearing on June 1, 2020, counsel for the plaintiffs initially argued that it was Mualem who represented the plaintiffs (p. 4 of Prov. S. 27), but later reiterated the plaintiffs' claim in the amended statement of claim and in the reply, that "to the best of their memory" (ibid., p. 7 of Prov. S. 23) each of the plaintiffs had an additional invoice that was expected to be for fees from the attorney for the transfer of the Goren hearing place. But "I do not sign it 100 percent" (ibid., p. 7, s. 24).
Plaintiffs 3-7 therefore argued that Goren's transfer of the venue breached his duty both as the seller of the land plots and as their representative in those transactions, while negligent in handling their case diligently and diligently. Later in the proceeding, the plaintiffs did not seek to amend what was stated in paragraph 14 of the amended statement of claim. According to them, the representation of the Goren defendant "is also proven by separate tax invoices issued by defendant 1 to plaintiffs 3-7 (which will be attached to the affidavits of A.R.)..." (Paragraph 14 of the amended statement of claim; paragraph 6 of the reply).