i'm informed by our clerk and deputy that all counsel are present all parties and counsel are present and accounted for so we'll dispense with the calling of the calendar here the appeal  versus not in this case during seven yes i expended thousands of hours defending this client's interest i filed hundreds of documents four federal courts in two states in new york and virginia i worked as you understand i work with my assistant we  exchange of emails between me and my client was absolutely more stressed it was two thousand five hundred thousand miles that we count and presented to the court from both sides in order to protect my interest i filed a motion for compensation and i understood wrote from this point that it's going to be a completely different consideration of the of these charge after work in court it was in number of issues raised in the rising from personal relations with this client and other side establish the rule under which this misbehavior may be treated as a fees as a legal matter separate from your case you just agree with that proposition we must be specific about serious of ethical violations of question and it's very difficult to just point to this question generally or i will repeat my question for your benefit do you agree that a quartz finding of serious ethical violations justifies the denial of legal fees to the lawyer who's been found to have engaged in serious ethical violations agreement is something more than a contract it forges a unique bond in a relationship between the principal who is the client and the agent who is an attorney it's akin to a covenant and as attorneys we are duty bound to advance our clients interests ahead of ahead of our own and to respect our client's autonomy as a principle this relationship of attorney client police by the judiciary by the rules of professional responsibility and by the grievance committee as attorneys we often take an oath to demean ourselves before the courts and i submit to you that this attorney client relationship was sabotaged and mocked by attorney m support chick and in his own rule in his own words written words undisputed attorney met support chick has written to his client stating the following i have the right to determine my financial interest in all non monetary relief received in this case i have the right to demand compliance with my directions in this respect please be advised that as long as i am representing you you are not free in your decisions regarding the resolution of the legal issues pertaining to this matter there are rules and procedures in determining a fair and reasonable set settlement and as i have said a million times before i will determine whether a settlement is reasonable if you disagree i will immediately cease representing you and place of lien on your claim i suggest two points one transfer your rights under the retainer to someone who will pay expenses  the agreement or to settle i told you during our last conference that i believe you require a guardian you must comply with my legal decisions and you have no room for further discussion on that topic i firmly reject your pervert views and corrupt practice that you employed in this case i reject all your bizarre and violent allegations if you have difficulties making personal decisions due to health reasons  medicine and he put forth in an e mail as an attachment his diploma and he underlined the courses having to do with forensic psychology and forensic psychiatry that he took in the former soviet union between one nine hundred seventy six  hundred eighty one and he then claimed disingenuously that the appointment of a guardian has this does not speak directly about mental disability it has to do with any kind of disability a physical she also said that he made out rageous insults claiming there something wrong with our that she is incompetent and has a cognitive impairment mit's the attorney message board chick has as included things in the appeal which were not in the hearing below and which weren't even part of the record below including an alleged lawsuit that ms holcomb filed against some prior counsel in fact what was in the record below during the hearing was that  vo and four fi decisions the standard of review is an abuse of discretion for factual findings the standard of review is clearly erroneous so these are highly deferential standards  actually explicitly embrace the zone well i believe so let me first say if not this is a great opportunity to do that but i believe that in the  you say we you mean the second circuit i don't know i don't know if the second circuit hasn't embraced it i think this may be a case of first impression at the second circuit but the looking at the garcia elements as as a district judge did  it's it's plain that attorney metz aboard with his usurping the client settlement authority impugning her sanity coworkers in her and threatening to withdraw and intimidating her  findings i would submit to your honor's that there is no basis to overturn especially under the highly deferential standards set for the standard of there was an entire hearing so when you say you were not heard on your motion was there evidence weren't you allowed to cross examine so you're on a not because scope of the hearing was limited been on for a little bit if you have a final sentence or two in your argument we'll hear it i just want to finish the as system can still  thank you both for your arguments and we will reserve decision