Roadmap for the Legal Decision
- Are the defendants' attorneys responsible for the injury suffered by the plaintiffs, members of Group 102? The positive answer is not at all necessary.
- In general, Halakha instructs us that "the responsibility of the lawyer to act skillfully and carefully towards his client is not absolute liability, and not every mistake constitutes an act of negligence. The lawyer is not required to calculate in advance all the possibilities in every factual scenario and he fulfills his duty when he exercises reasonable judgment, even if in retrospect it turns out that it was erroneous" (Civil Appeal 7633/12 Giot Group in Tax Appeal v. Goldfarb, Levy, Eran, Meiri, Tsafrir & Co., Tax Appeal Attorneys (published in Databases [Nevo]; 2014; in paragraph 45 of the opinion of the Honorable Judge, as he was then called, Gibran).
And in the circumstances of the case, the lawyers accompany the group from a legal point of view. Ordinarily, the lawyer is not liable for the economic feasibility of the transaction (Civil Appeal 2720/08 Jean v. Liebman (published in Databases [Nevo]; 2012; in paragraph 25 of the opinion of the Honorable Judge, as he was then called, Meltzer)). They are not responsible for formulating the business plan that underlies the construction project. They are not responsible for the risks associated with any real estate development project. The deal on the agenda could be more or less risky. They do not rule on this matter. They do not constitute an insurance policy that covers risks that have materialized. They provide their services to the group's organizers, and these are legal services.
As such, they are responsible for drafting the agreements on the agenda, and accompanying the group wherever legal activity is required. This will be the engagement with the construction and consulting bodies, the registration of rights, the handling of tax matters, assistance to the group committee, and so on. We must therefore warn ourselves not to extend the legal responsibility of lawyers to inappropriate areas.
- In fact, the plaintiffs' arguments concentrate on two different levels, presenting different dilemmas. The first level relates to the stage of negotiations that took place prior to the group's members' joining the group. The other level concerns accompanying the group after it was established.
- With regard to the preliminary stage - the stage of joining the class - the basic question about which the parties disagree is whether the defendants already served as their counsel at this stage. The answer to the question is, of course, very important. As far as the plaintiffs' lawyers are concerned, they must take care of their own interests, as their clients.
Here I found that the defendants' attorneys did not serve as firefighters at this stage. This clearly arises from the agreements that were on the agenda, most of which were not long and whose provisions could be understood. This also arises from the conduct of quite a few plaintiffs who sought separate legal advice, and who were even advised not to enter into the transaction in light of the risks associated with it.