All of these establish Adv. Nof's liability in torts for the damage caused.
- I cannot accept the defendants' argument that the class members who received such an application should have examined the agreements and refrained from payment, and attributed to them contributory fault for their omission. The fact that some of them did so does not detract from the obligations of the group's lawyer to insist on maintaining the contractual framework to which everyone is committed.
In this matter as well, the gap in power between the group members and the group organizer is expressed. From the testimonies presented to me, it appears that Ms. Or exerted very considerable pressure to receive the funds. Thus it happened that even though Ms. Michal Malkiel (plaintiff 3) testified that she was aware of the contractual clause according to which the time had not come for advance payment (paragraph 20 of the affidavit; p. 304 ff.), she nevertheless paid. Mr. Wladislav Kanievsky (plaintiff 9) testified that he paid in June 2014 after the tenants' meeting was held, at which Ms. Or clarified that it was advisable to pay. Mr. Meni Davidian, plaintiff 14, testified that he did not receive a demand for payment, but when he came to Ms. Or's office to inquire about the progress of the project, he was told that he had to pay, and he did so. and Mr. Kamar (plaintiff 17) stated that he had complied with the demand to pay without contacting the defendants for clarification. Mr. David Schwartzman, who entered into the transaction on behalf of his daughter, Mrs. Shani Schwartzman (plaintiff 27), also testified that he paid in light of the demands made against him without contacting the defendants.
It is difficult to expect all of these to be met with the firm demands of Ms. Or, who sent, as we have seen, a messenger regarding her demand also to members of a group who accompanied their family member on his deathbed in a hospital (see above at paragraph 166(c)). It is clear to me that all those who paid would have considered the matter carefully if the issue had been whitewashed as it should have been within the House, by holding a hearing in which the boundaries of the agreement would have been well clarified, and the gap between the law and an action beyond the letter of the law, for the benefit of the group.
- And from what we have reached so far, it is clear that the second part of clause 13 of the representation agreement, which exempts the lawyers from liability towards the plaintiffs, is also invalid, if they prefer the interest of the group organizer in the event of a conflict. As determined, this category preference of the group organizer is invalid. It contradicts public policy. It is invalid. And once the basis is dropped, he will not be able to overcome the cogent duties imposed on the lawyers towards the class members. And where the fiduciary duties have been breached, it is not possible to stipulate the liability of the lawyers for their breach. This is necessitated by the increased cogent core that applies to this area of purchasing groups, within which the conduct at hand is located.
- At the same time, I did not find that Adv. Aharonson should be held liable for this component. Aaronson was a young lawyer at the time. He began his work at Cassuto-Nof only in 2012. and at that time he had five years of experience in the profession (p. 840, s. 15). He accompanied the project, but was not a partner in the firm, and acted under the instructions of Adv. Nof. He certainly did not have any opportunity to argue with Ms. Or and decide to go out into a confrontation with her. This was the role of Adv. Nof, who was the senior and weighted figure. Another result would be that any lawyer, even the most junior, who provides legal services to the purchasing group, will be held fully responsible, in fact, for such damages, even if he is unable to steer the ship from its path.
On the other hand, Adv. Nof was a senior partner in the firm that provided the services. He was expected to benefit significantly from the considerable fees that this project was expected to bring, as long as it was likely to materialize. This senior position comes at a price. It is not possible to receive only the honey, in the form of legal fees, without the sting and it is the accompanying responsibility. And when the purchasing group's lawyer finds himself in the position of interests, he must attribute due weight to the fiduciary duties he owes to the members of the group, and not only to its organizer. No system of contractual agreements can accommodate these cogent debts.
- The plaintiffs also proved the relevant damage component. They detailed the said payment component in relation to those group members who paid it.
I do not accept the defendants' argument in their summaries (at paragraph 257) that no damage was caused to the plaintiffs who made the advance payment, since in any case they had to pay it in order to receive the rights in the apartments. This is because the money for the sale of the land received in the liquidation fund does not provide those plaintiffs with full return of their investment money. Hence, if they had not paid the balance of the consideration earlier, their financial damage would have decreased by the same amount.