In light of all of the above, in the circumstances as detailed and in accordance with the case law, I determine that the defendant is entitled to rely on the approval of the attorneys before whom the plaintiff and her husband signed, according to which they were explained the terms and nature of the transaction. In light of this determination, in any event, there is no relevance to the plaintiff's claims that Adv. Winder failed in his role and did not correctly explain to her the nature of the transaction and the risks involved in it. This is in view of the fact that insofar as this is the case, it is possible that these arguments can establish claims by the plaintiff against the lawyer, but this does not mean that the professional chosen by the plaintiff was negligent in order to establish a defense claim against the defendant, once it was determined that the defendant is entitled to rely on his approval. The aforesaid applies even more strongly in light of the fact that as detailed above - in any case the plaintiff's arguments were raised only against Adv. Winder and only with regard to the date of signing the first loan agreement and not against the other attorneys and with regard to the additional dates on which the plaintiff signed. Therefore, and given that in any event, all the appendices to the loan have stated all of its development so far - in any case and to the extent that the plaintiff would have had any defense claim based on the negligence of the lawyer who verified her signature and explained the details of the loan to her - there was no room to establish such a defense here, when the plaintiff did not raise any claim against the attorneys other than an argument based on her signature at the first time of signing.
- I am of the opinion that further support for the defendant's possibility of relying in the present case on the approval and verification of an attorney is found in the fact that in this case - unlike other cases "in which a warning light was turned on" as to the identity of the interests between the borrower and the additional signatory - in the present case, I do not believe that it can be said that the defendant should have known about the alleged conflict of interest between the plaintiff and her husband. This is first and foremost since, as detailed above, I am of the opinion that there was no conflict of interest between the plaintiff and her husband - on the contrary, the plaintiff believed in her husband and his abilities. Moreover, a large part of the loan money was actually transferred to the couple's joint accounts and not to the account of the Builders and Protectors Company. These transfers were supported by documents presented by the defendant (as detailed in the above section of the judgment). In addition, the plaintiff confirmed that the funds did indeed transfer to the account, but in the same breath she claimed that the transfer to the account was only "a conduit as my husband's personal capital to other companies, in our account, for our private use, it did not reach our private use.")Page 84, lines 3-12 - In parentheses, I will note that this testimony of the plaintiff is only an example of the eloquent manner in which the plaintiff formulated her testimony and the impression I received that she was an intelligent woman who was proficient in relevant terminology). However, the plaintiff's testimony that the money was passed on was not supported by any evidence - apart from her testimony and moreover, prima facie constitutes hearsay testimony, since according to the plaintiff's testimony her husband was the one who told her that the money was passed on (ibid., see her testimony on page 94, lines 20-22). To this, it should be added that the plaintiff's husband, Feldman, testified that although a large part of the funds did indeed transfer to the plaintiff's and his account, and in the same breath he added and confirmed that the defendant had no ability or connection to these accounts. From this testimony, it is clear that the defendant, for her part, transferred the funds to the private accounts of the plaintiff and her husband and not to the accounts of the Builders and Protectors Company. Thus, on page 125, the plaintiff's husband testified:
"The witness, Mr. Feldman: Sort of, yes.