18 September 2026ICE – משפט

Court Rules Client Must Pay Fees to Rights Realization Firm

A court rejected a client's refusal to pay fees to a medical rights firm after they helped him secure a 91% permanent disability rating and a tax exemption. The Senior Registrar ruled the contract valid, noting that dissatisfaction with the outcome does not justify non-payment.

Source transparency

This is an original newsroom summary and analysis. The source was not reproduced, and readers can inspect the original publication.

Original publication at ICE – משפט

Why it matters

The ruling underscores the legal validity of representation contracts with rights realization firms. It clarifies that a client cannot evade fee payments based on claims of dissatisfaction with the procedure's outcomes.

Key points

  • ▪The court rejected a forgery claim due to the lack of a handwriting expert's opinion.
  • ▪It was proven that the client cooperated with the firm and received professional service throughout the process.
  • ▪A claim regarding the inability to use the tax benefit due to lack of employment was defined as a mistake in the deal's viability.
  • ▪The client was ordered to pay the full agreed fee of 30,000 NIS.
  • ▪Additional court costs and attorney fees were awarded to the company.

A legal dispute between a client and the firm 'Orpaz Medical Rights Realization' reached a resolution in court after the client refused to pay the remaining agreed-upon fee of 30,000 NIS. The client, who approached the firm for assistance with the National Insurance Institute, achieved significant results, including a 91% permanent disability rating and a tax exemption. Despite these results, the client refused to pay the fees stipulated in the signed contract.

According to a report by 'ICE', the company initiated collection proceedings through the Execution Office. In response, the client alleged that he had not signed the power of attorney documents and that his signature had been forged. Furthermore, he claimed the service provided was inadequate and that most of the work was performed by himself and his family members. The client also argued that he expected direct payments due to his disability, rather than a tax exemption, as he is unemployed and unable to utilize the tax benefit.

Senior Registrar Helena Borochovitch-Litvin rejected the defendant's claims entirely. The ruling stated that the defendant failed to present a handwriting expert to support his forgery claim. Additionally, it was found that the defendant did not deny that a company representative visited his home, collected a 5,265 NIS file-opening fee, and received his personal access credentials for the National Insurance Institute website. The defendant also confirmed visiting the firm’s offices and receiving professional assistance and explanations regarding forms.

The court clarified that the client's claims regarding the type of outcome received constitute, at most, a mistake regarding the viability of the transaction, which does not grant a right to cancel the agreement. The claim was accepted in full, and the defendant was ordered to pay the 30,000 NIS fee plus 1,500 NIS in court costs and 6,000 NIS in legal fees for the company's attorney.

General information only. This item is not legal advice and does not replace review of the original source.

Back to all legal news

LawFirms.pro

Update or Remove Public Information

LawFirms.pro allows lawyers and the public to submit requests to update, correct, or remove public information for manual review.

Update or Remove Profile