In his interrogation, Mr. Attias claimed that Goren had indeed recommended that he take a lawyer on his behalf, but at the same time that he had told him that "it is not complicated, and that it is clear as the sun" (p. 807 Q. 4-5). In response to another question about the transfer of the place of the Goren hearing, Mr. Attias added, "The impression you gave me is that I trust you with my eyes closed" (p. 808, paras. 7-8), and that "you say" (ibid., question 14) that you represented only defendant 4. Mr. Attias concluded his remarks on the matter, when he slammed the transfer of the Goren venue, "On the surface, you were in fact our lawyer. You signed in our place, you signed the power of attorney, all the data, the registration. You sent emails, you functioned as far as I'm concerned... As a lawyer... 100%" (p. 808, paras. 18-25). In this context, Ms. Vyshevsky claimed, "When we were interested in the land, we approached you only as a lawyer. Later it turned out that you were also selling your land" (p. 1062, paras. 5-7), and she also claimed, "You did represent us. There was no other option..." (p. 1063, paras. 6-7; see also: ibid., p. 1107, paras. 14-21; p. 1111, paras. 6-8). Later , Ms. Vyshevsky further claimed, "You are my lawyer... I have no other lawyer" (p. 1124, paras. 4-13; Ibid., p. 1149, paras. 12-13; Ibid., p. 1151, paras. 14-15).
The conduct of the parties around the drafting of the agreement, including the preliminary response to all of the questions of plaintiffs 1-2, the handling of all the legal aspects of the transaction and the payment of taxes, along with the full trust that plaintiffs 1-2 felt in the transfer of the Goren hearing place, inter alia, in view of the close relationship between him and Rabbi Noy, and on the basis of his professional skills presented to them, lead to the conclusion that even if plaintiffs 1-2 did not pay for the transfer of the Goren hearing place, the representation was made. They were his clients at the time the contracts were signed (see also Mr. Attias's words at p. 987, paras. 6-9). Therefore, I found that Goren's claim that he did not represent plaintiffs 1-2 should be rejected, "except for assistance in formally handling the transfer of rights" (paragraph 177 of the summaries of defendants 1 and 4).