"... When a lawyer represents one side of the matter - as the lawyers in our case represented the company - in such circumstances the lawyer is required to be more skilled and careful in presenting the matter, so as not to consciously or inadvertently fail the other party, when he can assume that it relies on his credibility, integrity and skill."
These words are appropriate for our purposes. According to the addendum to the contract, the appellants were entitled to the registration of a mortgage on the collateral property. The lawyers received, according to the 3For an addendum to the contract, an irrevocable power of attorney in favor of the appellants, to carry out this registration of the mortgage. Moreover, the registration of the mortgage was conditional on the lawyers determining that "... There is an immediate need for this." In other words, the appellants placed their trust in the lawyers, because they would protect their case, and they would be given the discretion as to whether it was necessary to register the mortgage in their name. In this situation, the lawyers were agents of the appellants with regard to the registration of the mortgage, and assumed responsibility towards the appellants in this matter, even if the appellants were not "clients" of the lawyers. In registering the mortgage in favor of Mizrahi Bank on the collateral property, without notifying the appellants, as described above, the lawyers breached the duty of care owed to the appellants, even if the appellants were not their clients.
- In determining that the lawyers breached a duty of care towards the appellants even if they were not their clients, I do not ignore the fact that our case is not exactly identical to the situation in which a person purchases an apartment from a contractor, which is the situation discussed in the Yechiel case to which I referred. The appellants are not ordinary customers, but landowners who entered into a combination transaction with the contractor who was represented by the lawyers. However, in view of the circumstances of the matter before us, in which the appellants had no experience in transactions of the type in question, and there was no other lawyer who handled the transaction on their behalf, I am of the opinion that the logic of the Yechiel rule applies in our case, and that the lawyers owed the appellants a duty of care and loyalty that derives from taking responsibility in connection with the registration of the mortgage in their name.
- The appellants claimed that the lawyers also committed a tort of fraud against them. I did not find any basis to intervene in the trial court's determination on this point, according to which the appellants did not lay any basis for their argument, and inter alia did not prove that it had an intention in the minds of the lawyers to mislead the appellants. Therefore, the liability of the lawyers is based only on the tort of negligence.
- The result is that the late Attorney Eliezer Toister is liable to the appellants for
The damages caused to them, due to the fact that due to his negligence, they were deprived of the guarantee of fulfilling the company's obligations under the contract. As a partner in respondent 4, the tort committed by the late Adv. Toister binds respondent 4 ( section 18 of the Partnerships Ordinance (New Version) 5735-1975). Respondent 5 is also liable for these torts, as he was a partner in the partnership at the time of the commission of the torts (section 20(a) of the Partnerships Ordinance), even if he did not personally breach any duty towards the appellants.