Kotler explained that since, according to the explanation he received, the content of the agreement with Arnona contradicted the rules of ethics of the Bar Association, the contract was split in two, and as he put it: "According to the explanation I received, this is contrary to the regulations of the Bar Association. Instead, we made two agreements, and there it got me a little complicated." (p. 134, lines 19-29). "We split it up thinking that it can't be done in the simple way." (p. 135, lines 23-24).
Attorney Shemesh testified: "He probably wanted to somehow take such things and deal with them together in some way. And then we explained that because of the rules of ethics of lawyers, there are two limitations. He can't take a client and I'm his lawyer and I'll stand by him, and I don't know how to share the fees with him either, okay? And we discussed this a lot, there were no solutions. We tried to find solutions, it was a period that I just remember, the Bar Association dealt a lot with this issue of providing legal services not by a lawyer, and the bottom line was that they were splitting." (p. 42, lines 6-12).
According to Kotler, even after the split into two agreements, the fees were intended to be divided between him and Adv. Meyuhas. Kotler was asked: "And after the two agreements, were you supposed to reach the same situation where the client's fees are half and half? Only by virtue of two separate agreements?" and he replied: "Almost, because there I took upon myself the responsibility of paying the expenses." (p. 134, lines 30-31, p. 135, line 1). According to him, this was the first time that a client had signed two separate agreements. Since, in light of the aforementioned split, he was left without direct and independent access to receive information and updates, he requested that the letter of authorization be signed. (Paragraph 18 of the affidavit, p. 111, lines 22-23). It is important to note that all of the events and negotiations that took place between Adv. Meyuhas and Kotler regarding the manner of contracting with the clients, the splitting of the agreements, the problem they faced regarding the rules of ethics of the Bar Association, the role that Kotler was designated as opposed to the role of Adv. Meyuhas, were not known in real time to the defendant or its representative, and the matter was only discovered during the conduct of the current lawsuit. In other words, many years after the agreement was drawn up with Compensation and Control in 2009.