Conclusions
After hearing the testimonies and reviewing the documents presented to me, I got the impression that Kotler's version of the scope of his position changed throughout the proceeding.
On the one hand, Kotler reiterated that his work focused on marketing the idea and organizing the group , so that, in fact, with respect to the defendant, his position ended with the signing of the agreement. See, for example, his version in the affidavit of discovery of documents dated July 22, 2022, in which he noted that there was no document documenting the plaintiff's or his handling of the lease fees, for the reason that "I did not handle the matter itself. My job was not to deal with the matter..." (Paragraph 9 of the affidavit of discovery of documents and answers to the questionnaire, Appendix 9 to Mr. Fischer's affidavit).
During his testimony, he explained that when the defendant signed the agreement, his work was finished, and according to his version, this was not written in the agreement, since "the agreement signed by me in this project is an agreement that I have used for the first time, because there was a separation between me as Category 1, who had to satisfy the clients and explain to them and bring them to the matter, and the lawyer. This is the only place the first time we came across it. And so it may be that I had difficulty registering the agreement in full, it could be." (p. 110, line 26, p. 111, lines 12-23). At the same time, it can be seen that the agreements signed with other clients, such as the Carmel Brothers properties, are essentially similar to the agreement signed with the defendant.
According to Kotler, after the agreement was signed, the legal treatment became certain and the matter was transferred to Adv. Meyuhas. (p. 124, lines 7-9, 14-15, 21-27). According to him, clause 5 of the agreement left the legal process unambiguous, since: "We apparently disconnected it from another agreement and it's a bit cumbersome..." (p. 125, lines 29-32, pp. 1-8).