"A lawyer must, as stated, act for his client as a skilled and careful professional, as is usually required of professionals in the provision of services by them. However, much more is required of a lawyer as a professional, for whom the duty of loyalty and conduct with honesty and dignity are among his foundations."
Adv. Manor represented the plaintiff in the sale transaction as described above, and therefore, she has a duty of loyalty and dedication to him, as her client, according to the law. This means, as Adv. Manor knew, Positively, Because the "apartment" does not have a building permit in accordance with the law, She should have disclosed this fact to the plaintiff, and since she did not do so, she breached her professional duty to him under the law.
- Adv. Manor's attempt to remove Above it The professional liability based on what is stated in clause 4 of the agreement is doomed to fail. It has already been ruled that "A contractual agreement between a lawyer and a client in relation to the non-fulfillment of one of the duties imposed on lawyers in relation to their clients, will not prevent liability for the negligence of a lawyer who did not act in accordance with it" (Civil Appeal Authority 5884/14 Pinxo Global Investments inTax Appeal et al. v. Doc Investments, 1988Tax Appeal et al. [Nevo] (29.10.2014)). I also refer toCivil Case (Haifa) 10011-03-19 Haya Mushka Shiner et al. v. Yaron Kraus et al. [Nevo] (August 10, 2022) in which a similar case of a sale agreement was discussed in which Written "The buyer confirms that he is aware that it is not the expertise of the lawyers to examine the physical and planning condition of the properties and the degree to which the built properties are compatible with the building permit and the drawing of a condominium registration order. The buyer assumes responsibility for examining these issues through professionals who are experts in the matter, and he exempts the lawyers from any responsibility for these matters.". In the aforementioned lawsuit, it was ruled that this section does not exempt the lawyer from his professional responsibility towards his clients, and it was held that "If Adv. Salomon really believed that the plaintiffs should carry out in-depth examinations through other professionals (and not just wishing to remove liability from him), he should have refused to draw up the sale agreement on the date it was drafted, so that the plaintiffs would have enough time to carry out such examinations.", things that are acceptable to me in the circumstances of the case before us.
- In light of the above, I determine that Adv. Manor was negligent towards the plaintiff in the performance of her duties, and did not act as a reasonable lawyer would have acted in the circumstances of the case. Its negligence is expressed in the fact that it did not inform the plaintiff, in a positive manner, about the planning status of the "apartment" prior to the signing of the sale agreement and/or did not advise him to refrain from signing the sale agreement prior to the examination of the planning condition of the "apartment" by a professional on his behalf, and the provisions of clause 4 of the sale agreement do not remove from it the professional responsibility imposed on it in this context. It has already been ruled that:
"The relationship between a lawyer and his client is based on trust. The client is usually a layman in the profession, and he relies on the lawyer to fight for him with faith and to defend his rights to the best of his ability. The lawyer's duty, therefore, is to serve his client faithfully and devotedly. Loyalty to the client is the first of the commandments given to the lawyers" (Appeal against the decision of Detention for Days, 9/55 Adv. Anonymous v. Chairman and Members of the Legal Council [Nevo] (December 6, 1956).
- The conclusion from the above is that on the tort level, the two defendants are liable to the plaintiff for the tort of fraud by virtue of Article 56 To the Ordinance The Torts. In addition, Adv. Manor is liable to him for the tort of negligence and breach of statutory duties by virtue of sections 35 and 63 To the Ordinance The Torts.
It should be noted here that the determination of the source of the liability of the two defendants towards the plaintiff has implications for the types of compensation from which the latter can be paid, as will be expanded on later.
- The Criminal Procedure
As may be recalled, an indictment was filed against the plaintiff for the use of the land in deviation from the permit and liability for the use of the deviation from the permit (see section 14 above). The prosecutor denied the offenses attributed to him in the indictment and claimed in his defense that he did not know about the planning condition of the "apartment", including the failure to obtain a building permit for it, before purchasing it. In order to prove his aforementioned defense, he summoned the defendant and Adv. Manor, as well as the appraiser, Mr. Avi Hadad, who prepared the appraisal report in 2009 (see paragraph 5 above). Contrary to his expectations, the two defendants testified that prior to purchasing the "apartment", the plaintiff knew about the planning status of the "apartment", including the lack of a building permit for it.