I do not accept this argument.
First - I was not persuaded, as stated, that Adv. Manor explained to the plaintiff that he must check the planning status of the apartment, including the significance and/or importance of this examination, prior to the purchase of the apartment. The plaintiff addressed this issue in his cross-examination by saying the following:
"Q: ..... In clause 4 of the agreement ..... It says that you must check the planning status, have you checked the planning status?
A: I checked with the municipality what I knew needed to be checked, as the appraiser Volkan testified here that these things are checked, municipal taxes, water, a land registry document, these things I checked them and let my lawyer check the other things, that's how I knew a deal was being made when I was 33 years old" (p. 41 s. 34-38, p. 42 s. 1-2)
In addition, he refers to his testimony, which was quoted in paragraph 24 as follows:
"I read and understood him the way I understood him in front of me to the lawyer who represents me, at least she would say to me, Erez, read it, but take it home, check, take a day or two, or maybe emphasize to me in a positive way, as required by a lawyer, to tell me to leave, stop you, take someone to check it for you, an engineer, an appraiser, someone to check it, She didn't do it" (p. 42, 35-39)
Second - Without derogating from the duties of good faith and the prevention of deception, Adv. Manor There is a professional duty towards the plaintiff, by virtue of Article 54 of the Israel Bar Association Law, 5721-1961, which stipulates that "In the performance of his duties, a lawyer shall act for the benefit of the sender with loyalty and dedication...", and By virtue of Section 2 to the Rules of the Bar Association (Professional Ethics), 5746-1986, which states "A lawyer will represent his client faithfully, dedicatedly, fearlessly, while maintaining fairness and the dignity of the profession ....". Regarding the scope of these debts, it was stated in the Levy case as follows: