Moreover, clause 2 of the agreement states that taking legal proceedings is only one layer of dealing with the reduction of lease fees, and according to clause 5, legal treatment may not be required at all. All this while the preamble to the agreement stated "since: the client wants the company to handle a civil case with the municipality and the authorities in general."
If the plaintiff's version is accepted, the conclusion will be that already on the date of signing the agreement, the plaintiff supposedly completed her obligations, since the signing was made after the idea was marketed and after a meeting was held in the office of Adv. Meyuhas. This interpretation cannot stand, since the agreement uses a future language with regard to the plaintiff's undertaking.
The defendant further argued that the plaintiff's version, according to which her role was ostensibly limited to mediation, is absurd, since it turns the entire agreement into an "invalid contract" that is null and void in accordance with section 30 of the Contracts (General Part) Law, 5733-1973, and in light of Rule 11b(a) of the Bar Association Rules (Professional Ethics), 5746-1986. The plaintiff's claims also attribute to Adv. Meyusha an action contrary to section 56 of the Bar Association Law, 5721-1961, in that he allegedly solicited by another to hand over professional work to him. It is presumed that Adv. Meyuhas would not have given his hand to say so. The defendant noted that during the handling of her case, Adv. Meyuhas chose to withdraw from the representation and the case was transferred to Adv. Eidelman, who moved to work at another law firm.
The plaintiff's version is also inconsistent with the unusual amount she requested for herself, which exceeds the attorney's own fees of 6.3%, while the plaintiff demands a commission of 7.5%. It is clear that such a high rate of payment is intended for dealing with the authorities, and not as a brokerage fee for referring a client to a lawyer.
Insofar as the plaintiff intended to charge a fee of 7.5% for brokerage, it should have clearly stated this in the agreement itself. However, the defendant would not have agreed to enter into such an agreement. The defendant received offers from other parties who offered her services for a lower amount than the plaintiff's offer, and the defendant agreed to contract with the plaintiff, only because of the representations that Mr. Kotler would deal with the authorities.