Avi Goldhammer & Co. Law Office

The office of Avi Goldhammer & Co. is one of the leading and esteemed law offices in Haifa and the leading office in Israel in the field of local authorities. In the years 2014 to 2022, the office had been consecutively rated by D&B as one of the top offices in the field of local authorities. The office was established in 1979, and since 1990 it represents a large number of local authorities on a regular basis, including the municipalities of Nahariya, Nazareth and Kiryat Motzkin, the local councils of Jezreel Valley and Rekhasim, as well as planning and construction committees, the Haifa District Municipal Association for Environmental Protection, Asher Regional Council, Afula Municipality, the Building and Planning special committee Harish and “Yamim” water and sewage corporation. The office also engages in land laws (including TAMA 38 and real estate taxation), corporate laws, corporations, business ventures, torts, and medical malpractice. It represents a large variety of Israeli and international companies, as well as private clients in those matters. The office has approx. 14 employees, of which 11 are advocates.

Main Fields of Expertise

The office specializes in litigation and appears before all instances, including the Supreme Court and the National Labor Court; it also represents clients in arbitration proceedings. The office’s main fields of expertise are:
Administrative Law: The office specializes in administrative law with an emphasis on local authorities, and it represents local authorities in all civil proceedings and cases, before all instances.
The office provides representation and advice in a whole range of topics in the field, including financial tenders and employee absorption tenders, labor law, negotiations, and contract drafting, municipal property, and other taxes and levies, planning and construction, the performance of municipal projects and contracts with service and equipment providers, etc.
The office also engages in representation and counseling to officers in the municipal authorities against whom a personal charge proceeding had been initiated, representation of municipal corporations, and the establishment of water and sewage corporations and their representation following establishment (within that framework, the office was involved, for instance, in the establishment of “Yamim”, Kiryat Yam’s water corporation) and the establishment of the water corporation “Ma’ayanot Ha’Amakim” (incorporating Yokne’am, Tivon and Ramat Yishai).
Labor Law: The office represents public entities, local authorities, companies, employees’ boards, as well as employees on private representation basis, in all matters related to labor relations and labor issues, including employee admission proceedings, employment contracts drafting, employee rights, social benefits, employer’s authorities, resignation and dismissal, and retirement.
Land and Real Estate: The office provides current legal counseling and representation in the real estate field, including drafting real estate agreements, handling apartment and lot transfers, and registration and transfer of real estate properties, and it represents many housing companies and contractors, including TAMA 38 projects. The office also specializes in the various aspects of real estate taxation.
Medical Malpractice: The office specializes in representing complainants in medical malpractice cases against doctors and medical institutions.
Class Actions: The firm specializes in the representation of both plain plaintiffs and defendants (institutional or otherwise) in class action suits.

Achievements, Significant Cases and Precedents

The office has participated in a large number of important cases, some of which had attracted wide media coverage, and achieved significant precedents.
Below are some of the notable achievements and cases:
Cancellation of the Elections in Nahariya – The office represented Nahariya’s mayor who lost the 2003 elections. An appeal for cancellation of the elections was filed and the demand to cancel the elections leaned on the claim that they were tainted by-election bribe. The Haifa District Court, by its president, his Hon. Justice Lindenstraus (his title at the time) accepted the appeal, and the Supreme Court rejected an appeal against it. That was the first time in which elections had been canceled at a town of that magnitude. Afterward, the office succeeded in the cancellation of elections in three other local authorities – Beit Zarzir, Peki’in, and Arabe.
Nahariya Municipality v. Income Tax – An appeal by Income Tax regarding surplus expenditure. The District Court accepted the Municipality’s position and canceled the bylaw.
Y.A. ALON v. Israel Land Authority – A petition to cancel decision regarding winning a tender. The petition was accepted and the winning has been restored.
Mifram Ltd. v. Tiberias Municipality – An appeal to the Supreme Court in order to disqualify a tender offer due to a benevolent bank guarantee. The appeal was granted.

Significant Cases in the Past Year

CRM C v. Afula Municipality - A petition to cancel decision regarding winning a tender. The office represented Afula Municipality.
Yigal Hacker and others v. Broner Yehuda – A claim to enforce a political agreement between party members of a party that ran in the municipal elections. Our firm represented the defendant. The court rejected the claim, stating that this was an unenforceable agreement, among other things.
Y.A. ALON Construction Ltd. v. The State of Israel: Israel Land Authority – A claim for the loss of profit as a result of an illegal decision made by the tender committee to cancel the plaintiff’s winning of a tender. The procedure ended in a agreement according to which the State paid the plaintiff a sum of NIS6.75 million.
Mazliach Zeevi Infrastructure, Development and Initiation Ltd. v. the Municipality of Tirat HaCarmel and others – A petition against the decision of the tender committee of winning another winning tender. In its decision, the committee ignored the mechanism of choosing the winner as determined in the tender conditions. The decision of the committee was supported by a legal opinion. Notwithstanding, the court accepted the petition, instructed to cancel the winner’s win, and returned the discussion to the committee while instructing to act according to the tender’s conditions, which led to the plaintiff’s winning of the tender.