As it appears, CPA Alfia was in contact with Fisher throughout the proceeding, and inter alia, he made sure to provide him with regular updates and to receive the defendant's share of the funding of the experts' fees (see, for example, N/1, N/2, p. 14, lines 25-29, p. 15, lines 1-5, p. 17, lines 21, 27-32, p. 18, lines 14-18, 21-22, 24-28; see the testimony of Adv. Eidelman, p. 100, lines 28-32). Attorney Eidelman, who was the legal person who handled the case for Kotler's group, testified that there was no communication with Kotler "even more than in the last decade." There was a significant connection with CPA Alfia, and "he was the one who coordinated and approached the firms to participate in financing the expenses" of the experts (testimony of Adv. Shemesh, p. 36, lines 3-15, p. 37, lines 15-16; testimony of Adv. Eidelman, p. 68, lines 4-13, p. 84, lines 28-29, p. 94, lines 24-32, p. 95, lines 1-4).
According to the fee agreement, the defendant undertook to pay the Meyuhas law firm $630 as well as 6.3% of the savings. The plaintiff's fees are 7.5% of the savings. Adv. Shraga Biran's fees were 6.8% of the savings and the fees of Alfia CPA were 1.8% of the savings. (p. 13, lines 29-32). According to CPA Alfia, most of the members of the group paid him his salary, with the exception of a few heirs (p. 19, lines 18-24, p. 20, lines 13-20).
The question arises whether the plaintiff has the right to enforce on the defendant the fulfillment of her obligations under the agreement and to pay the plaintiff her fees. In my opinion, this question should be answered in the negative.
First, because the parties abandoned the agreement - as we have seen, the plaintiff did not prove that she contacted the defendant during the period, for many years she refrained from fulfilling her obligations, did not take an interest in the progress of the proceedings and did not act to perform the services she undertook in the agreement.
Kotler, for his part, claimed that the defendant never approached him, with any question or request for consultation, and even when a mediation agreement was reached, the defendant did not contact him, regarding the manner of realizing the lease (paragraphs 32, 33 of the affidavit). Fisher's testimony indicates that the defendant did not take any action in order to promote the plaintiff's part in the fulfillment of the agreement. "Attorney Yitzhaknia: You say it didn't happen, he had to do it, he had an idea, and suddenly nothing happened. So what did you do? The witness, Mr. Fischer: In retrospect, I realized that I had been deceived. Adv. Yitzhaknia: What is it in retrospect? The witness, Mr. Fischer: In the end, when I understood when we asked the question what kind of treatment you did on the day of his fee request and he wrote nothing, Adv. Itzhaknia: In 2019, the witness, Mr. Fischer: Yes. " (p. 214, lines 9-16).