agent the trust to represent it is that if you're at the attorneys who filed a notice i've been disqualified the bankruptcy court had never this qualified the trust serving as a trustee he is also an attorney so while the case law match money has been disqualified from representing the trust but he has only been disqualified from representing representing the trust in the bankruptcy case he was not fifty percent sure shareholder of the debtor that was created solely to insure that the law for would collect its legal fees isn't that right not one hundred percent but mostly yes the trust was also created the bankruptcy court concluded that the law firm's representation of a shareholder in which it had a business interest conflicted with the simultaneous represented representation of the debtor right that's correct however judge it's important to point out the sequence of events because the law firm only up or ever represented the debtor in possession while it was in possession in chapter eleven upon appointment of the chapter eleven trustee and in this case the law firm and the debtor to the extent baldwin was representing the debtor they did cooperate with the trustee there was no conflict at that point the only the  try to want to once the the chapter eleven st he was appointed a law firm filed a motion to withdraw from representing that that the bankruptcy court initially denied that motion but thereafter granted a motion to disqualify the law far from representing th representing the truss because of the conflict and never vacated or rescinded that order probably correct the after the law and trust a trust is an artificial interesting  it can only appear in our court if it's through an authorized agent probably yes the bankruptcy court has disqualified it from representing the law firm from representing the tru bankruptcy did the bankruptcy judge to disqualify the law firm from representing the trusts in this litigation in the underlying bankruptcy case yes congress never disqualified in this or court and certainly not he entities or some movement or whatever but there and what is actually on appeal is not order what is ought to feel is the law firm came in and asked again the even more tenuous here because you're out of the k you've been disqualified and then your alarm came back in and said we want to resume our representation and the district court said no was disqualified from representing the data remember the law firm st requested to withdraw from representing the debtor the bankruptcy court denied that motion but they're after disqualified upon the disqualify to not allow the law firm to any longer represent does remember at that point that the role of representing the debtor was ministerial fs there was an appointed chapter eleven trustees the trustee takes control of the management roll for about one point nine which deals with conflicts with four plus and that's why this appeal is is it before the court the bankruptcy court ruling on or that one  is factually and legally flawed the court determined that the law firm with engaging in conduct which was materially adverse to a former clients and that it was in a substantially related matter the role around and it's our position that we've never been disqualified from participating in the appeal and if so and if that disqualification does affect it's for the case oh aspects of the case then you're out it's also important that i that i know the initial notice of appeal for the st case we're talking about nineteen dash  qualification is means that you are not authorized to represent the trust and this bankruptcy case both in this court and the district court and in the bankruptcy court then you're out finding of professional misconduct there was nearly a district court maybe chastising or finding an attorney to conduct not ideal in the context of the litigation but the recent binding of professional conduct the court did note that should there have been a finding of professional misconduct that would have served the basis for appellate review the issue was mainly that there was a lack of corporate farce in that case the district court actually mr moffat acting importantly produce say in his capacity as trustee of the trust and as attorney for the related and yes went so far as to follow a competing plan a reorganization and the bankruptcy court that for a lease the debtors claims against his law firm and made them president of the reorganized better isn't that right that's correct the the competing plans and i hear there are thousands of pages of documents and information and it's a  i think the answer is that the chief justice is question was assume for the moment that the disqualification order this qualified you from representing the trust in all aspects of the  good the disqualification the particular see at the moment the that the law firm represented the trust in any matter other than in the bankruptcy court in the contested matters associated with the bankruptcy case and court there was a i don't exactly recall the exact circumstance but there was a some sort of procedural snafu if you will where the designation of record was filed in the district court as opposed to the bankruptcy court and inadvertant six and the law firm filed a motion ultimately the initial the appeal was initially dismissed however the law firm in the bankruptcy court filed a motion for reconsideration of the dismissal order which the bankruptcy court there granted and allowed the prosecution of the appeal by the law firm in this into the district court and here we are today that the question about the plans i know it sounds ridiculous the plan and  parties were fluted from asserting the senses were enjoyed and were barred from defending the ranch rests so the competing plan was really in a vacuum yes it sounds a little bit absurd but really what the competing plan was was to your honest statement that you have your arms wrapped around this pretty thoroughly is accurate judges and i will start by commenting on the issue that took up most of the argument which is this disqualification there were three bites at the apple by mr moff and he was denied a cessna disqualification it's only effective and bankruptcy court no sir there's no possible way that that can be accurate you have appeals here of three different things you have an appeal and sixty three who are on the lease of the option you have appealed the confirmation order and then the appeal this qualification itself they were actively opposed by mr moffat as trustee at the bankruptcy court level and after he was disqualified as counsel mr gleason came in and actually made these arguments at the confirmation hearing which is also the hearing on the approval of the release of the option i apologize for that is something i can't you can't forward your calls no sir i'm at home just in any event judge the bottom line here is that all these appeals are a continuation of the contested matter so that where the subject of the bankruptcy  court is qualification there's no way that a judge predicate his fate advance what appeals would be taken from this he can only deal with what was in front of him at the time which he was clearly upset with in the tone and the language of the orders that were and are the only reason that the disqualification or that the the withdraw was not approved at the outset was he expressed on the record a concern as to whether that would preserve malpractise claims against mr moffat and his firm ultimately it was determined they would not and he allowed t withdrawal and then ultimately enter the orders of this qualification to say that that doesn't carry over into these appeals what else are they the whole crux of this is that the initial action bankruptcy case was filed by mr moffat as counsel he at this counsel for the debtor possession statutorily when the trustee was appointed the trust the took over for the debtor in possession but they occupy the exact same place in the bankruptcy case the safe do share responsibilities the same obligations so clearly this was a continuation of representation of the same client and it clearly created a situation where there was conflict as to a former client in the same matters  which there was clearly an adverse effect on the client by the continued representation i think that was abundantly clear and i don't see how that can be contested with all due respect by mr moffat or his counsel so whether it's  of how that works judge if i were disqualified the case i would never come in on the appeal i would look at that as a continuation of the same that are the same clients that resulted in the disqualification spot and i have a few minutes here if i could just briefly comment on those points i wanted if you really don't  yeah i think that that's completely accurate if the court has any questions or wants to hear on the other substantive issues i'm happy to discuss that if not all rest on the briefs and i think actually i can only speak for myself that's should be the decision by the court that is disqualified lawyer has been disqualified as to matters relating to the you cannot appear theory and that would essentially be our position i think the client remain the same and i disagree with that statement i know it has more to do with merits however the the duty and nurse to the attorney is dependent upon the role the attorney yes that's true but i believe that the reason does matter before we initial disqualification order was based on a current conflict between two current clients the order that we did appeal your argument that it right the grounds for disqualification evaporated is that what your argument is that was the argument we presented in the motion of it evaporated subsidies grounds were not present in the seats if your argument is remove correct that's what you did you failed in that and an effort to get the bankruptcy court today and let you represent the trust right when i'll say yes but with a qualified yes in that in the bankruptcy court what when and when and you can and cannot engage in representing an adverse interest to a former client and when the matter is not a substantial related matter you can absolutely represent an interest adverse to a former client and that's because quote matters are substantially related for the purposes of this rule if they involve the same transaction or legal dispute or if there's this is otherwise a substantial risk that confidential information as would normally have been in st in prior representation no but see that's the that's the nuance in bankruptcy you have potentially millions of of controversies and each and as the court explained in the supreme court explained in in the ricin case recently the court really needs to focus on the procedural unit that's tangential to the entirety of the bankruptcy case in order to really analyze each individual dispute in the supreme court and bowl in bowl or and  there's also a nd trust and there are two individuals who are beneficiaries who are all clients and all follow the in this relevant in this appeal the three other fines who were never disqualified from doing anything they were all parties to the competing plan disclosure statement and adversarial proceeding that was filed and what we presented this to the bankruptcy court and said judge you only disqualified the firm representing one trusts not the three other