According to the language of the agreement, the plaintiff undertook to take active actions in the defendant's case, and this undertaking was repeated several times throughout the agreement. Kotler is an economist by profession who has been engaged in the field of business consulting for decades (paragraph 2 of the affidavit; p. 103, lines 17-18), and it appears that he was the one who drafted and drafted the agreement with the defendant, or at least took a significant part in its drafting with the assistance of the Meyuhas law firm.
The representation that arises from clauses 2 and 5 of the agreement is that the legal treatment will be carried out in addition to the treatment, which will be carried out by Kotler, when the legal treatment is not at all certain. The discretion given to the plaintiff regarding the completion of the treatment is a sign that the plaintiff was supposed to be a significant and authoritative factor throughout the entire proceeding until its end.
Added to this is the fact that Kotler signed the defendant a letter of authorization to carry out various actions vis-à-vis the Tel Aviv Municipality, stating that he intends to act with the Municipality on behalf of the defendant. This matter also contradicts Kotler's basic claims, according to which his work ended with the signing of the agreement and that the defendant was aware of this. If this were the case, then there would be no need to grant permission to carry out future actions. Insofar as Kotler knew from the outset that his work had ended with the signing of the agreement, he should have stated this clearly and explicitly in the agreement itself. At that time, the defendant would have known that the agreement was for past efforts, and that she could not expect any future benefit from the engagement with the plaintiff, while demanding the payment of high fees to the plaintiff.
According to Adv. Shemesh's version as part of the agreement with compensation and control, Kotler undertook to carry out the non-legal treatment and to fund the experts' opinions. The clients' signing of a separate letter of authorization is intended to enable Kotler to perform his part in the treatment, independently and independently of the Meyuhas Law Office. Although at the end of the day no affidavit was submitted on his behalf, Adv. Shemesh confirmed in his testimony that what was stated in the draft affidavit was true (paragraphs 5, 6 of the draft affidavit - P/2; p. 61, lines 11-13, p. 62, lines 24-26). According to his version, the legal treatment to which Kotler undertook included actions such as searching for historical documents, obtaining and financing appraisers, obtaining economists, and conducting negotiations with city officials. Had it not been for this undertaking on Kotler's part, the engagement with a privileged firm would not have been carried out, since it might have been considered a brokerage act on Kotler's part or a division of fees (p. 66, lines 1-10; see also his testimony at p. 42, lines 14-20, p. 56, lines 1-6, 8-9, 11, 13, p. 63, lines 24-30, p. 65, lines 5-6, 8).