any we have one case here this is morning with judge perry and judge perry is on the phone and will participate in this there is some ambiguity here and it's important to make clear about something that attorney representing a chapter seven debtor in new jersey and in most of the country will generally have a limited scope of representation that happen to be true in this case as well i ok not necessarily representing assignments with respect to the two thousand for example with respect to the subsequent not discharge ability action the subpoena attached was invalid for a number of reasons we took it to the bankruptcy deposition didn't have the language of rules for the five seen the as it was written back then which gave which would have given the consumer better guidance as to anticipated that decision quite correctly and i would i don't know i don't really have anything to say about better unless the court has questions on how to determine standard it is not the case that the simon decision and the martin yes your honor i think i think there's certainly no question after that decision that a communication that's made only to a debtor has to be examined in a lie that we have to see here but it doesn't it but but if the statutory provision in the end in that case was whether under sixteen nine hundred eleven the mini miranda ruling morning had to be included in the communication but not if it was clear or it wasn't there if it was required to be there it wasn't there than it sophistication of the recipient when the when the recipient of the communications understanding of the communication is this is the seduction of that standard of possible dobson of that standard comport with our statement  communication to consumers attorneys and audibly and in direct communication to the consumer i think it would be consistent with that that statement that ruling that holding that i do run i think up in a house so well  opposite enough exactly you have to have a validation of the f t c p a the fraud in the paper the communication the legal paper pleading process whatever you want to call it the floor has to relate directly to the f t c p a and the result  for the record doesn't reflect that and i was not at the firm of the time the serac so i don't have an answer that question but maybe that is if you don't know you don't know i don't know the answer inside the record but they could have done that clearly they could have done it they could have fixed it in other words they could've actually  on the canners professional responsibility require you to communicate with an attorney when you know or if you're presented unless it's otherwise authorized by law at the fair to collection act therefore authorizing what about that position frequently in my practice you try to let the other counsel go that you want to subpoena their clients or you can work it out you can talk about dates you can talk about scope if they refused to accept service of behalf of their quite well then you have to serve it personally but the issue  whether there's a conflict between the ethical rules and while forty five the issue was whether there's a conflict between girl forty five and sixty ninety two of the provision of sixty ninety two which i don't have in front of me it's from heaven for me i don't know off the top of my head which one it is but the one that says that she cannot communicate with a creditor with a creditor may not communicate a debt collector may not communicate with a debtor when it knows that the debtor is represented by counsel  rice and rule forty five right there is a clear and direct conflict between sixty ninety two c o two and will forty five it would have and i would also say i would also point out that you know court right away you try to work it out with your client you try to avoid creating problems for the court you try to avoid making work for the court you try to work it out so so obviously he would send that he would he would communicate first with it but with the person you thought would be the  that he wasn't hired necessarily for this round of the activity in my opinion doesn't prevent you from taking that first step because the better might then up tyrant him as they did and you know the fact that he might not have been hired to do this work also i think is completely irrelevant to the question of whether you apply a competent term standard that whether or not he was hired is a subjective fact it's not relevant to the objective standards that should be imposed and for whatever reason they never thought to contact their chapter seven bankruptcy and they hopped in their car and drove up the drove to new york which some people think is such a big