In this state of affairs, we have already noted that in accordance with case law, a lawyer owes his client a duty of care to protect his interests and to act for him skillfully, professionally and faithfully (Civil Appeal 37/86 Moshe Levy v. Yitzhak Yehezkel Sherman, 44(4) 446). Breach of this duty establishes liability by virtue of the tort of negligence in the Torts Ordinance. Another basis for a lawyer's liability to his client is a contractual basis, to the extent that the lawyer was negligent in representing the client's case. Another source of a lawyer's duty of loyalty towards his client is found in the Courier Law, 5728-1968 (section 10 in the Dornbaum case).
It is simple and clear that a lawyer cannot serve at the same time as both the owner of the land seller and the representative of the purchasers. The interests of the seller are inherently entailed competing values and conflicting affiliations with those of the buyers. While the former seeks to maximize the advantages of the sale and praise the sale, the latter want to reduce the cost of the purchase and ensure that the sale will be found without defect. If we see what we have said, then it cannot be said that after the transfer of the venue of the hearing, Goren acted in trust on behalf of his senders, plaintiffs 1-2, at the same time that he sought to promote the sale for defendant 4. The tension in which Goren placed himself in the transfer of the venue of the hearing caused him, on the one hand, to formulate the contract with plaintiffs 1-2, while emphasizing the existence of a lease contract with the manager, a fact of which plaintiffs 1-2 were well aware, but in their eyes dissipated the content of the lease contract, and especially the existence of clause 15 and its accompanying meaning.
Moreover. Even if it was found to be said that Goren's transfer of the venue did not serve as counsel for plaintiffs 1-2, whether because this was what the parties intended in the contracts they signed or because he claimed that he repeatedly made them orally that they had the power to take on other legal representation, we accept that "the duty imposed on the lawyer under the law to act in favor of his sender faithfully and dedicatedly, imposes on the lawyer a rather heavy burden when he purports to serve two clients with conflicting interests. But his consent to serve them at the same time does not exempt him from this elementary obligation, and he must bear the meaningful and civil consequences resulting from the breach of duty towards one of them" (Anonymous, p. 708).