It should also be said that the incentive to elect Adv. Meyuhas, by reducing the plaintiff's fees, contravenes the provision of section 56 of the Bar Association Law, which prohibits a lawyer from soliciting, by himself or by another, to entrust him with professional work.
From the outset, it was clear that the issue of the agreement with a privileged firm was contrary to the rules of ethics of the lawyers, and Kotler sought to overcome this obstacle by splitting the agreement. Thus, we are left with an agreement that has an illegality at its heart, with the basis for signing it being overcoming the rules of the Bar Association (professional ethics). The case law held that where the contract is illegal, it is in principle necessary to refrain from enforcement and to provide relief in respect of it. In the appeal of the Engelsman Administrative Petition/Action, the Supreme Court ruled that the tender, which was heard before it, violated Section 58 of the Bar Association Law, and this reason was sufficient to bring about its cancellation, even though the Center was published and the winners were declared winners (paragraph 22).
It should be clarified that the court has the authority to raise on its own initiative the question of whether a contract before it is invalid. The question of the invalidity of a contract and the conclusions that derive from it, is a question that the court may raise on its own initiative. It is inconceivable that the court is obligated to give effect to an agreement, which in its opinion is illegal or whose execution is contrary to public policy (Civil Appeal 581/89 Mazal Edri v. David Rosenberg, [Nevo] (December 15, 1992), para. 4; Civil Appeal 2232/12 The Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem v. Samir Farwaji [Nevo] (May 11, 2014), paragraph 16 of the judgment of the Honorable Judge Hayut).
To all of the above is added the issue of savings, or perhaps the loss caused to the defendant.
The plaintiff claimed that at the end of the proceeding, the defendant enjoyed savings of ILS 4,378,929 before VAT. The defendant, for her part, claimed that not only did she not benefit from savings in the lease fees, but that she suffered a loss, since at the end of the proceeding she was forced to pay a higher sum than she was supposed to pay according to the municipality's original demand.