Second, this is not a claim against an estate. Indeed, since the conclusion of the agreements and the registration of
The mortgages are at the heart of this proceeding, and until the beginning of the proceeding, the late Attorney Eliezer Toister passed away, who was the one who handled the matter. However, the appellants should not be attributed to the fact that they had raised a new claim or demand while taking advantage of the death of Attorney Eliezer Toister. As we have seen, the appellants put their arguments in writing back in 1987, when Attorney Eliezer Toister was among the living. It emerges from the testimony of respondent No. 5 that the appellants approached the third apartment as early as 1986, and as stated, while Adv. Eliezer Toister was still alive, the correspondence with the Betterment Tax Administration was conducted, and according to the documents that were provided to him, the appellants' right to three apartments is still mentioned.
- In view of the determination that it was not proven that the appellants waived their right to security in respect of
society, the need arises to discuss questions relating to the responsibility of the various respondents for this
In the end, she was not safe as stated. We will now discuss these questions, and first of all, under the responsibility of the defendants' attorneys - the law firm of A. Toister & Co. Law Offices, and Adv. Shai Toister (who are respondents 4-5).
Attorneys' Liability
- Before the Court of First Instance There was a dispute as to whether respondent No. 4, A. Toister & Co. Law Offices, and the late Adv. Eliezer Toister served as counsel for the appellants. Before us, the respondents did not dispute 4 and 5 in their summaries that they also served as attorneys for the appellants. The circumstances of the case also show that they served as attorneys for the appellants in all matters relating to securing their rights as well as registering a mortgage in their favor. Therefore, the starting point for the discussion of the attorneys' liability is that there was an attorney-client relationship between the law firm, which is respondent No. 4, and the late attorney Eliezer Toister and the appellants.
- The main ground on which the appellants rely in their argument is the cause of negligence, which is based on the provisions of sections 35 and 36To the Ordinance The Torts. There is no dispute that a lawyer owes his client a duty of care, to protect his affairs and to act for him skillfully, professionally and faithfully. In order to examine whether the lawyer's conduct constitutes negligence, which constitutes a breach of the duty of care, the standard of skill and caution required of the lawyer must be set for the client. This standard draws from two main sources:
"Firstly - the law as formulated in the Halacha with regard to the level of skill and caution required of a professional towards whom he owes a duty, and secondly - as far as a lawyer is concerned, from the specific law that determines the appropriate norms of conduct for a lawyer as such. I am referring to the rules that find their place and expression in the Bar Association Law, 5721-1961, and in the regulations and rules that derive from it, according to which a lawyer who does not comply with them, all the more so if he sins against them, is liable to find himself indebted to his client as a breach of contract against him or as a wrongdoer against him in the tort of negligence" (Civil Appeal 37/86, 58 Levy v. Sherman, IsrSC 44(4) 446, 462).