These words were said in relation to a lawyer representing two separate clients, who has no personal interest in one of them. This conclusion is even more valid when the lawyer has a personal interest in one of the parties, as in our case, and all the more so when the other party is not represented. In the case law, it is stated, "... As is well known, there may also be liability for the negligence of a lawyer towards someone who is not his client... The question of the extent of the liability, and when it is formed, depends on the factual circumstances of each case" (Dornbaum case, paragraph 12 of the judgment; Compare: Civil Appeal 3397/22 Bank Leumi Le-Israel in Tax Appeal v. Confino, (December 3, 2023) hereinafter: "The Confino Case"; Civil Appeal 2599/13 Adv. Moshe Herman v. Ron Aldor (September 3, 2015) hereinafter: "The Aldor Case"); Civil Appeal 7721/22 Dr. Ofer Walter v. Adv. Yosef Stavholtz (December 24, 2024)). It was also held that when a lawyer handles a transaction in which one party is not represented, "greater skill and caution are required of the lawyer in presenting the matter, so as not to consciously or inadvertently impede the other party, when he can assume that it relies on his credibility, integrity and skill" (Civil Appeal 1170/91 Ephraim Bechor v. Yitzhak Yechiel, 48(3) 208, 215 (1994)).
The special status of plaintiffs 1-2 vis-à-vis the transfer of the Goren hearing place, within the totality of the circumstances in our case, leads to the conclusion that the transfer of the Goren hearing venue has a duty of care towards them, and that it violated it.
In light of the conclusion that Goren handled the real estate transactions for plaintiffs 1-2 as their counsel (and even if he was not their representative, his liability to them for the reasons mentioned above), he was required to use his profession with great skill, while revealing a broad duty of professional care that includes examining the legal status of the seller (the Confino case; See also: Civil Appeal 6277/19 Dr. Sanford Asher Herman v. Adv. Arie Weiss (March 15, 2022) hereinafter: "The Sanford Case"). This is certainly true with regard to the discovery of the very existence of the condition of restitution.