The lawyer is obligated to act towards his client like any skilled, loyal and careful professional. However, from a lawyer, by defining his role, the legislature demands a higher standard of conduct in each of these aspects. Section 54To the Bar Association Law, 5721 -1961, states that
"In the performance of his duties, the lawyer will act for the benefit of the sender with loyalty and dedication." A similar provision is also established in section 2 of the Bar Association Rules (Professional Ethics), 5746-1986, in this regard, that "'faith' means truth and honesty, and 'devotion' means diligence and diligence, devotion and piety, with the client's interest being at the forefront of the lawyer's concerns and concerns" (Bar Association Appeal 7/73 Anonymous v. District Committee of the Bar Association, IsrSC 28(1) 679, at p. 683; see also in this regardAppeal against a decision of detention for days 9/55 Anonymous v. Chairman and Members of the Professional Committee, IsrSC 10 1720, 1730; Appeal of the Israel Bar Association 5/78 Anonymous v. Israel Bar Association, IsrSC 33(2) 586, 587).
These duties are imposed on the lawyer even when he acts on behalf of both parties to the transaction, who in many cases have conflicting interests (A. Bar-Shalom "On the question of their liability in torts of Lawyers" Hapraklit 21 (1965) 479, 484). In such a case, it was ruled that the agreement of a lawyer to serve two clients with conflicting interests does not exempt him from the obligation to act for the benefit of his sender with loyalty and devotion, and that "he must bear the disciplinary and civil consequences resulting from the breach of duty towards one of them" (Appeal of the Israel Bar Association 2/80 Anonymous v. District Committee of the Israel Bar Association Tel Aviv-Yafo, PD 34(4) 707, 708; See also Civil Appeal 554/87 Mazor et al. v. Arieli, Piskei Din 45(1) 370 and Civil Appeal 37/86, 58Ibid., on page 468).
- Was Attorney Eliezer standing? The late Toister in his duties as the appellants' lawyer?
- In my opinion, this question should be answered in the negative, for two separate reasons. One Flavor
concerns the failure to guarantee the rights of the appellants by registering a warning note in their favor on the collateral property. We are dealing with a combination transaction. As part of the transaction, the appellants, who are the owners of the land, were required to grant their rights in the land to the company and the bank, so that they could ultimately receive the agreed contractual consideration. The lawyers who represented the appellants were tasked with ensuring that prior to the transfer of the appellants' proprietary rights in the plot, the appellants would be given a collateral, which would prevent infringement of their rights if the contractual obligations against them were not met.