Instead, it turned out that the group's organizer had approachedsome of her members directly, in an attempt to take advantage of the power disparities between the parties and their vulnerability. The lawyers should have been required to carry out the process in its full scope, and to make sure that no one pays before the matter is properly clarified.
None of this was done.
- Another opportunity to clarify matters arose at the first meeting of the buyers on May 29, 2014. At the same meeting, some of the buyers noted that they had received letters of demand to complete the consideration, when they were assured that the next payment would be required only when a lending bank entered. It was also noted there that Ms. Or had informed them on that occasion that they should advance the payment in order to close with a lending bank as soon as possible (Appendix 38 to the defendants' affidavits; page 521 of the appendices to his affidavit, in paragraph 3.3 of the transcript). This meeting was attended by, among other things, the two defendants and dozens of members according to the attached list.
But here, too, there is no exhaustive clarification of the matter, not even on the group level. It did not say that the matter would be examined by the group's lawyers, and that an answer would be provided later.
- In these circumstances, it can be said that Adv. Nof breached the fiduciary duties imposed on him by virtue of his position as a legal representative of the class members. And yet he did not derive a benefit as a result of this violation. He didn't get rich from it. The funds transferred were transferred to the team organizer and not to him. In these circumstances, there is no basis for imposing a duty of compensation on him by virtue of the laws of enrichment, and not in law. This raises the question of whether there is room to order monetary compensation by virtue of the laws of faith.
This question can be left for time to come, since Adv. Nof can be held liable for the tort of negligence. In the circumstances of the case, it can be said that he deviated from the truth of the reasonable conduct of a lawyer in these circumstances, when the reasonableness is derived from the world of the purchasing groups and their internal balances. This deviation occurred in front of those to whom he owes them a duty of care. At a certain point, he was aware of Ms. Or's conduct. The damage caused was predictable, since Adv. Nof should have estimated that at least some of the members of the class who received a request from her would accede to her request and transfer money to her, even though according to the contractual system they should not have done so. And when he did not take steps to prevent this transfer of funds, there is also an immediate and clear causal connection between his omission and the damage as required by the tort of negligence.