not use that to impeach or trial testimony that was introduced into evidence but what was the record reflect that it was used to impeach her testimony it was the the deposition was already had reduced into evidence if i would have attempted to have that read it and was already there i didn't need to read it again well you did that when you try to impeach someone's testimony do you not call their attention to you know this witness  did you give a deposition and such and such a day and i don't want to take up the time you know how to how one would do that and then call their attention to a particular sentence that would be contrary to the trial testimony you know whether it was that counsel i'm going to have to ask you to speak up i'm not sure if it's my hearing are the microphone or the size of the room here just keep your voice up a live yes these exhibits had been delivered to the court several weeks before the trial and like you say they were all admitted into evidence and i thought i'm going to see even if it's in evidence counsel did you not have to do something far there i didn't believe that i did because it was already in evidence you would agree and she testified to was at that meeting she did not agree to have me represent her she said nothing about that there was nothing was said period she didn't she never testified that she never agreed to retain me for services and the record will also show from the from the time sheets that were introduced and emitted into evidence that we had for  end of our of our dialogue when i st received the information from the other tourney i sent it to her in that i immediately talked to her on the phone and she said that she wanted me to represent her and then based on that we set up a set of it's the nd meeting where we had a couple of more telephone conversation converses in them we we had a meeting with the three of them and her me to retain your services he's not going to allow me to give you the ten thousand dollars retainer that was set forth in the gages letter that i had given her a couple of weeks before that and the told us to not not not the objections themselves but the numbers so then we went back into chambers and based on his ruling that he adopted each and every of her objections we can you you need to do counsel ok the st thing we needed to do while the myths that we that you think that you have the in the in that particular case the other side had already gotten leave of the federal court to file a motion to enforce the settlement so we knew we were going to have to defend that ok now what was what was this this wasn't a case that had been pending for a couple of months it was had been pending for two and a half years there was one hundred and ninety seven entries in the federal docket some including thirty page thirty page opinions and what you say you know based on thirty page opinions we was resist the motion that they filed to enforce the settlement agreement that had supposedly entered into court here approved then we had to that once we want once we leave if we were successful and in defending the motion or to enforce the sort of agreement we're going to have to go to trial shortly thereafter for three terms there was never one instance were the attorneys all charge for the same work the inner action between myself and one of the other attorneys was minimal that they they engaged the three of us in there in  basically good putting the nd property into it into the trust should be compensated for so they asked for a reduction of four hours and for a charge of four hundred fifty dollars to the remaining charge would be paid a four hundred and fifty dollars and you have six digits in the record with all these handwritten notations on it with the hours it and my understanding of this and reading it to war with the transcript is that is that the handwritten notation is you have to do with what you're willing to pay specifically with regard to the trial court's finding that this federal court case was straightforward i mean one that certainly was a finding the court made in hindsight but wasn't there evidence in the record of the engagement letter and didn't the engagement letter the evidence of this and gauge not letter point out it didn't say anything specifically about  settlement agreement and that they were going to resist the settlement agreement that it really talked about with regard to representing you in all matters pertaining to your dispute with the attorneys not i mean we always use war as an analogy to trial but the question here was is this going to be a commando raid or a siege because the lawyer was on the side of the defendants this was going to be a commando raid and the primary purpose out of the plaintiff's own mouth for which he was hired was an easy and straightforward task now in addition to that i would point out that the  that that engagement letter also promised to provide periodic billing the building was not provided periodically plaintiff claims just because he was told not to the judges look at the bill he looked at the objections to the bill what he did was thoughtful and based on evidence and unless the court is prepared to say in looking at this evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party that an opposite conclusion is clearly apparent or the fact finders of the judge's findings palpably erroneous wholly unwarranted cleared of the result of passion or prejudice or arbitrary and unsubstantiated by the that i'll tell you that that is is a matter of judicial notice that anybody who has downloaded documents has an idea of what but the voting documents consists of what gets to the issue of appeals argument which is the trial court using its discretion look at this i would agree with that but i would also stressed that it was the plainest burden to prove that his bills were reasonable and he did not make that he did not carry that burden now as to the as your record but it is your honor pointed out quite correctly it wasn't used in court and used in court which is a term of art and it has to be used as your other pointed out to a peach someone or read the evidence like an evidence deposition simply making it a part of the record every attorney would do that you know heartbeat and then look to be reimbursed for of for all the deposition costs if it's not the law and if it is not practical counsel argues that there was no evidence in the record meeting and she was thinking about it in her words and she said my husband won't let me i don't have the ten thousand dollars she did not sign up with him there was no sign and gave them a letter ever produce it will countless hours as most of us have and he hated it when assurance companies would cut the bill we've all know i've heard that and it's a real pain in the neck in his words he hates to cut bills he low having to do this he said he's looked at over a one thousand bills while serving as a judge and has cut three of the three and this is over four this is not a wild man who was out trying to  break some of these back this is a man who applies is considered judge with his background as both an attorney and a chancery judge and applies it to the facts as he sees them and you can disagree with how he sees them but he disappeared and i respect that but i i can't tell you how many hairs make a beer any more than i can tell you exactly how much time you've suggested that for him to say doesn't take more than a half hour to down and that's a personal experience i think ed and i some people will say that you can you can take that as as gospel some people might not but i suggest to you it is not palpably erroneous and it fair job and if it's simply on its worst day viewed from the standpoint of the light most favorable of the prevailing party it doesn't meet any of those requirements that would have  his review of of them as well as his review of the testimony of the witnesses and they all i think the whole bundle as you said the whole ball of wax i think has to do with of work that was done with done over two years there was no high sign any time during that that time that will what the bill was going to be in the judge's words that passed through that a lot of reaching she regularly asked for a copy of the bill so she could quote know where i'm at home and he kept saying he'd get it together he'd get it together well we've just seen she told him that she ever hired him and yet but but clearly we had to do a lot more than that if we were successful in defending that notion no retainer agreement seven are going to handle all aspects of this federal litigation plus conference all of that is it is in the record in her answer to the complaint today and requested that i represent her with regard to the lawsuit being contemplated by i mean b in that we had four in person conferences we had ten telephone conferences we had my interaction with the attorney on the other side all based on her request that i represent and then and then also a shroud created by her discovery deposition that was introduced into evidence that she admitted that she had retained represent her in the emmy matter which is the matter regarding the did do the work the work that i did do was admitted into evidence is the exhibits so again we have from the quest for the two services i did the services in church and at the same rate that i've been charging them all in they accepted the work the next did you they signed they signed the transfer documents now as far as transfer what we did was the as far as the still the only estate planning services i did are things that they trust that already contains their home now as far as them being insolvent at the time there was no evidence of that the evidence was introduced that now he had become the sole shareholder of the sole owner of the restaurant they had paid the st judgment a one hundred and forty five thousand dollars that was already paid for the only thing that was even considered at this point in time was this new allegation