However, in the course of the cross-examination of plaintiff 3, Mr. Yaakov Horowitz, counsel for the plaintiffs was forced to admit that "this assumption (according to which the invoices were produced for legal representation by the transferee of the Goren hearing place - my addendum) turned out to be erroneous" (p. 120 of Prov. S. 31-32). Counsel for the plaintiffs then added that what is stated in paragraph 14 of the amended statement of claim, "This section, as worded, at the moment, is not true. Unequivocally. Yes. He speaks from erroneous assumptions" (p. 121, paras. 4-5; See also Mr. Hurwitz's response at p. 66, paras. 14-15; See also Mr. Sidon's answer at p. 1252, paras. 3-7; Reply of Mr. Elia Shimoni, at p. 1426, paras. 13-15; Ms. Shimoni's answer at p. 1375, paras. 20-22; Answer: Transfer of the place of discussion Cohen at p. 339, paras. 1-3; Answer: Move of the place of discussion to Junger, at p. 140, paras. 1-2).
The plaintiffs' conduct in this matter is improper. With the intention of intensifying his omissions and the manner in which Goren moved the venue of the hearing, plaintiffs 3-7 raised arguments that do not correspond to reality. These plaintiffs forced Goren to defend himself in relation to the said claim even when they knew it was not true, while claiming improperly that the relocation of the Goren hearing venue told them that he represented them together with the relocation of Goren's hearing place. It is difficult to understand how it was argued that Goren served as counsel for plaintiffs 3-7 before the signing of the contracts, where they never met him, did not speak with him, did not sign a power of attorney in his favor, and in any case did not present invoices for fees they allegedly paid him regarding the handling and representation of the various transactions. Other Municipality Applications 5328/21 Zuhadi Abu Rakiyya v. Izzat Handaklou (January 3, 2023) The tests that were first established were mentioned in Other Municipality Applications 37/86 Levy v. Sherman, 44(4) 446, for the purpose of examining whether there is an attorney-client relationship, for the purpose of establishing a trust relationship. In doing so, it was determined that it was necessary to examine whether the client approached the lawyer with a request to represent him; Did the lawyer respond to his request; whether the client signed a power of attorney in favor of the lawyer to handle a given case; Whether fees were paid for the treatment, and whether a meeting was held between the lawyer and the client in which the client detailed his requirements (ibid., paragraph 69). It is beyond any doubt that these questions should be answered in the negative in the relationship between the transfer of the Goren hearing place and the plaintiffs 3-7.