case for this afternoon is two thousand and fifteen one zero seven two three marshall meyers vs regional adjustment bureau may please the court counsel my name is steve knight you know i'm here on behalf of the appellate marshall meyers we've raised a number of issues in our brief but i'd like to focus on the known issue here and that is whether mr myers whether the record reflects that mr myers for the record reflects convincing evidence mr myers engaged in bad faith cars and i submit that there is no evidence in this record that mr meyers engaged in misconduct and certainly not clear and convincing evidence of bad faith and that please give this if we ended up agreeing that there was a concern with the use of inherent power here your opponent or your client's opponent had also filed under nine hundred twenty seven and some other rules that would allow for recovery of attorneys fees if we want your way on inherent power would we need to manage it for consideration of other venue well that doesn't get me where i feel i need to go someone to call upon inherent power to discipline these lawyers and i'm saying well if we end up agreeing with human disagreeing with the judge on that piece should we nonetheless send it back to consider where we began which was the nine hundred twenty seven setter i think that i think the answer is if you disagree that my client should have been disbarred and have the award of fees against him that what the appropriate relief is to reverse the order as it pertains to miers i don't know that there's anything else to remain and the court did not grant their motion on one nine hundred twenty seven rule thirty minutes because the court went out fine and here in power i mean you have argued very strongly all of the difficult to meet standards of this inherent power the clear and convincing in the bad faith in all of that and that's been a big part of your argument in addition to an argument that he didn't do anything wrong at all which i get so if you persuade us on that it seems to me that then there's still this question of whether attorneys fees as a sanction is available in some under some other rule that the district court put aside in her mind the judge in her mind because she was going on this this inherent power package you know your honor i guess i hadn't given that a lot of consideration because when rabbies or doing for the continuation of this theory that mr marrs law even though we didn't and so forth they don't argue in the alternative that if you find that he didn't lie at least remain for reconsideration so that we can get or attorney's fees from the firm was just going to be a wave that i'm sorry i'm sorry what is the status of the attorney would need to decide whether or not there was not just clear and convincing evidence we would need to decide whether you were correct in your argument that they didn't do anything wrong and all they would do is to my or your client didn't do anything wrong at all so that they couldn't go back and try to get the nine hundred twenty seven if it's not waived assuming it's waived then we don't have to do that but if we if we didn't find it way then we should answer the question of whether he did anything wrong and all that could be sanctioned perhaps that's absolutely right and i have to heard before the court that what the reason i'm here and the reason we're pursuing this appeal is can you imagine a fifteen year boarder who has worked his entire life to build a farm to build a reputation to build a business having fifty people dependent on you who are employees at various times and now you have an order even though mr meyers and never been sanctioned his honesty is integrity have hasn't been questioned before and now you have this eighty three page order that's calling him a liar you know what's interesting to me is y'all on it both ways you want to be able to cite his back past record to kind of support the idea that this is a shocking sanction against him but you don't want opposing counsel to be able to the other areas where his firm was sanctioned or where if things were called into question about the way the firm runs itself and i don't think you can have it both ways if you want to rest on an i am a man of integrity then i think you're stuck with any shots that come your way on another that would suggest otherwise judge but i think it's the other way around it's because the district court allowed ms malone in rab to expand the scope of the sanction hearings to to now include this this massive campaign of let's destroy the firm's reputation let's destroy the man behind the firm's reputation that he has to come forward and tell the court everything i told you on the first day of the hearing everything i said was true and if you remember from this record and i urge this court to apply the careful eye that it described in the regular people you go back to the first day of this here when mr meyers explain why he's there what he's doing there the court is immediately began asking questions about have you ever been the subject of discipline right it seems that it was far afield from the matter before the court when and positive software would say that you shouldn't be going into exe drain is meant the court is not a roving web site checker for the state bar for example well i don't like that and also the opposing counsel can't be the one bringing evidence to the court and that's and in which i don't i was going to ask the opposing counsel what evidence did the court find on its own on these extraneous points that was not brought to it by opposing counsel well you know i'd like to know that to judge and we tell that from this record because i've read the transcript extensively and looked at the a can't tell that from the record and here's what's troubling me is in the route bill opinion the court remarked that it's sort of a disturbing sense of partisanship in reference to the letter that was brought to the court's attention i agree with that but the court based on  opposing counsel responses to the court this court to dispel the notion that this organization has anything to do with proceedings below fun if that's true i can't figure out a couple of things i can't figure out number one why that in their brief there are two tin ewing to argue that mr meyers lied about rad bills accomplishments in the capitol records case when i think in my brief in the record conclusively shows that that is not that prior firm was involved in that case in two thousand and nine and remained in yet the argument is still there in europe you know barely license first year associate i mean to say your the lawyer on the cases i mean i think that was a bit of a stretch but the but i want to say something because you're bringing it out and it isn't you personally but i'm very concerned about the lawyers in this case in general because if we whether or not we reverse the the suspension they have to practice together at some point and certainly in state court where the suspension wouldn't matter and it seems to me that your client and the law firm miss malone's firm are just crosswise on everything i mean you just want to call each other names why is she still doing this why is he still in it just seems like it's just a series of name calling instead of getting to the bottom line and you know we sent him prior opinion too long so maybe the rights of miss malone his conduct or something appropriately that isn't  your client's conduct appropriate i'm not suggesting i'm not suggesting that what i'm suggesting to the court is that mr meyers is head is his reputation ruined through this war and he's had his reputation ruined by and i know your hon you know maybe the capitol records thing not a great example it is a great example in the recent years when that you go back to you look at the pivotal moments in this in this this sanctions here after that was brought out the lies on the resume and the fact that the managing partner are sponsoring this law telling the world that this lawyer has experience that he doesn't have and that he couldn't have they just made it up because the case ended two years before he was a lawyer the follow up exchange and what's critical here is what impression to believe judge boyle judge boyle is relying on the attorneys to to present accurate information and judge boyle turn to mr meyers at that critical juncture and said in light of the fact that that that this point brought up here shows that he lied about this do you stand by this guy and how could you stand by him don't you see this is ultimately going to be your own downfall this is you know the ball now but the problem that i have is i mean even the heat of the battle if you will the judge just got angry and issued some sort of contempt or something like that that's how that comes up but this eighty three page opinion was written over like a year and a half after the hearings concluded there were five hearings so the suggestion that this is a need to agree action to some you know tone of voice or something like that to me is a born out by the record i'm not saying that that makes the sanctions appropriate i just think that argument is a really well placed here but let me ask you a different question because i want to get to this what if we were to conclude that the evidence shows i'm not saying we will but if we were that mr meyers didn't properly supervise mr rack what happened what does that  supervise and to the next if anything have to to bring something to your attention on this because if that's where the court is going on the failure to supervise that that is is most assuredly not supported by this record let me tell you in the original motion for sanctions that was filed by bob alone after the the white case the allegation against the firm you have to keep this in mind the firm was accused of essentially three things number one your feet agreement is unethical well nobody's found  anywhere number two is is the fact that  settlement offers whether they were communicated and then number three the third allegation in the original motion for sanctions is there are many examples of partners reviewing the case and further supervised lead counsel bill throughout the entire know what was going on and does it matter that he didn't know what's going on because it's not his assigned case it's it is accurate that he built two point four hours and if you look at those entries he's making sure things are calendar things are dotted he's looking at the case as a managing partner  eye view and the allegation is that there are too many partners and too many people supervising the rabble that's what started all of this in their motion for sanctions what they could get that that could be wrong now so judge james is asking a different question does the record show know i don't want to say otherwise is your client the one who's that's on or is that on his brother or someone else at the firm who's to be supervising him that's exactly right i mean even the opposing counsel refers to hearing radil as the supervising attorney during the sanctions hearing mr rad bill was asked questions about supervision and he was asked whether he ran things by any sort of the super bowl his testimony hundred was of course i did i talked to my brother aaron read all about how to try this case and what's the difference in experience of the two i mean aaron is the more seasoned attorney now how long has he been practicing relative to know and i use their first names only because their last names the same i'd have to look at that i know that the i know was responsible for that yes and as a matter of fact mr mr myers is not a texas lawyer and had the time the white case was tried he's not admitted to any district court in the state of texas he couldn't have gone inside by side and i mean maybe got pro hockey or something but he's not supposed to be supervising him on this case no other than from a man a managing partner who has over a firm that has cases in many many states he's going to be copied on various things and he's going to be making sure that the cases are moving forward but as far as the need that you're ready details of the case he's relying on other partners in the form who are on the ground to move the case forward and how many people in this for the testimony because i think there were seven partners at the time but they had also of counsel folks in you know other states to help them along with cases in which and how many is wrong isn't there and was or no radel was an associate i don't recall if there were two or three others i know that that was addressed within the first ten or twelve pages of day one and so i i thought that the i thought a few things in terms of the record not only of the trial but of the the record leading up to the trial and i guess my observation would be leading up to the trial no  radil filed various documents secured summary judgment victory depositions defended a very aggressive deposition taken by the other side secured legal rulings from the core such that there were no signs of trouble well  what would you have no other opinion about what mr redbone did how he responded to the judge i think that i do judge i do not think that that came out in the record i think clearly that the exchange about was the forty thousand dollars disclosed i can't say mr rabbit lied about that i don't know them and i'm not talking about a line i'm talking about or whatever you only say whatever you want to call what kind of a when he gets to this action here is that i have read the complete record and there's nothing no misconduct in it at all except not showing up of the morning for the verdict your honor i don't think that's what mr meyer said he fact if you look at what he said on day one he said that there are things plural that mr red bill did wrong in his next sentence he clarified however that in his view he doesn't think it was done in bad faith because he doesn't agree that mr randall is a liar that was his point that he was trying to convey to the court and he said you you have anything to say personally i'm asking  forty thousand dollars in the and the fifteen hundred and why that wasn't disclosed in the pre trial did he explain that if you would if you were before the co no i don't believe i would have explained it the same way or why not i'm sorry what would you have done well i think that the position that came out through mr rudd bills council that step to represent mr gravel at the sanctions hearing was if there was some sort of a miscommunication about the forty thousand and that the more appropriate answer would have been in direct response to the court's question we're not intending to seek this recovery it wasn't disclosed for that reason and that's the end of the story issue that's right and i want to be part of the problem with miers it was his in the judge's terms failure to acknowledge the problems with rand that's kind of how i think we're going with this question as you pointed out he did  in the record show that mr meyers was given notice either via show cause or something like that that he could be barred from practicing law based upon his recollection of judge  proceeding not what get what in the record gave him notice that he could be barred or suspended from the practice of law because of the website record representations of the associate what in the record give mr meyers notice that he could be suspended from practicing law based upon what he said when he was representing mr rabbit hole and the first day of the hearing  do you believe that due process requires these things to be have been he should have been given written with very good written notice that he could be suspended and that he was being personally brought him if it goes beyond the case law which side says he's entitled to written notice not of the of that but also on the grounds that before judgement disbarring an attorney is rendered he should have notice of the grounds of the complaint ok as soon mean that the croquet says that if the suspension and then it must be vacated if there no clear and convincing at a similar argument and that also that applied to the monetary sanctions in the crow case assuming that we were instead to go back to this the attorney's fees issue under the statutory attorney's fees rather than a year in power with those have to be allocated to apportioned or could he be liable for the entire amount of the attorney's fees throughout the entire trial of which he was not a part of or would he only be for the second day the third day of misconduct or clear and convincing evidence of bad faith conduct worsley evidence of mr myers doing something wrong here and that's what i that's what i began with their their first or human on the peel deals with misrepresenting things about never did he firstly have knowledge or information that mr white was going to testify about the forty thousand dollars in damages the evidence that they cite as showing conclusively in their opinion that mr meyers there are these time richards the time entry saying nothing about mr meyers having evidence and it's contrary to what you had asked me before that his time entries two point four hours don't show the specific level of involvement to have knowledge about the white memorandum each and every alleged lie that opposing counsel rav points out in continuing to try to get sanctions against mr meyers it does not check out i've looked at this record as i know the courthouse in great detail at this sanctions hearing and i submit that there are some fundamental capitol records on earlier and other key example that's critical is after the first day of the hearing when the court was asking him about the history of the firm and so forth and then you get to the second day of a hearing where based on the rabs position about expanding the scope of the hearing to involve miers mr meyers a shock how am i getting brought into this i voluntarily appeared in court to defend the firm and to try to assist here i even got admitted to the northern district to assist here and now i'm being that the court on day one inquired as to ethics complaints against the four and he goes on to say later on i can absolutely positively tell the court that no attorney at weissberg myers was ever disciplined in the context of an ethics complaint day three of the sanctions here comes up and they're going through the three sanctions orders and in the in the history of the firm of mr meyers and judge boyle says i've heard something you disapprove of in other words if there's something that is against you in a case and you can concede without giving away your client's  confidentiality or the case sometimes it's a very wise to do it but you are looking at are we are looking at a record there where any forty thousand dollars that came completely serious ponty was not from me it was in a exchange with judge with judge boyle the memo the what we would call the smoking gun memo the december sixth memo that came out in the last day of trial talked about it at great length the judge boyle but that did not come from us the other piece bit of evidence that judge boyle talked about specifically regarding mr meyers i was trying to focus only on mr myers not on mr red bill was judge hughes transcript we did not bring the transcript is bring it she got it herself yes ma'am she actually attached it to her order as it's an exhibit because she doesn't she know of that proceeding you brought that to her to we didn't talk to her about that the existence of the sanction that the transcript existed we did not offer it because after the close of the second day of the sanctions hearing where mr meyers asked for the continuance judge boyle at that point asked us to all file our exhibits which is why there were additional exhibits that came up on the third day of the hearing i don't mr might not thought that we just brought those for that was not true judge boyle actually gave us an order both sides filed in the exchange done in advance of the third day of the hearing the transcript was dot i don't think the hearing it actually happened yet but there was certainly no transcript available so we did not bring it to judge when she found that on her own we did tell her about the existence of the scarlet case and the complaints made about mr read below on line to judge  that were done at that time so that was she but but did you later tell them that that was not found to be lying to judge hughes it hadn't happened your honor any of the sanctions hearings i think that the order about the scarlet came came out after the sanctions hearing in the five hundred something days before the order was issued it did anybody bring that to her attention during the roll of the time period before her big order that was based upon something that really hadn't pulled that way that you know and in fact it just graves went on to say that the other side was the one that had been just you are judge well have issued a very strong or that nobody filing think we are not filing thing i do not believe that mr myers or mr bell filed any additional notice of a ruling while the majority opinion in the scarlet they cater didn't have anything to do with the merits of whether or not there was a law it was simply simply an important really recall where we were procedurally at the time of the sanctions hearing at that time judge boyle good already told us that there would be a hearing we filed a thirty seven motion a written one we have had an oral one in the trial itself and a hundred twenty seven motion your honor the only two into these that we sought fees against were mr rebel individually and the law firm weisberg myers we did not seek anything again so you were not seeking attorneys fees against mr meyer we did not actually to attorney's fees so that's the answer to the question yes ma'am that's what i was trying to get to is that that it would be the nine hundred twenty seven motion which judge boyle decided not to rule on because of the inherent authority was directed at mr red bill and at the law firm we had not i didn't actually because i do recognize that's what she did when i read at the end of the order that she specifically said the two attorneys were responsible for attorneys fees she didn't say weisberg marcelle the reason why mr meyers was even being called to the stand was because he was there as a representative of the law firm and that's why we called him to the stand not because we were trying so you're not pursuing the one you believe against but from what we in this hearing the judge hasn't ruled on that the attorney's fees motion and does have been a final ruling i'm not sure it doesn't affect the law firm because the law firm still pending on one hundred twenty seven lives again still pending even though you've had these five days of sanctions and in order you don't think the order addressed that what if you read man get back in and you're telling the judge that will the case back if she rules on that and she looks at it i think we could get in a tie or tourney fee against mr rad bill but i think that there's not a final determination on the twenty seven i'm not sure that's right judge because we i think we could still argue determined that that wasn't the right vehicle to get to a place of disciplining these two lawyers and went off on that tangent but there was if there's no ruling on the firm then it should that been a motion to modify that order or wasn't clear i would argue that that we would go back to judge boyle and say the courts made the determination with regard to mr ragdoll mr myers do you want to revisit the nine hundred twenty seven motion as the law firm if we were going to do that if this rebel takes care of the fees issue i don't know that we would ever even raise it except that we can't we can't do anything with so we only in this particular appeal this one and only one we heard already already we only deal with the that we have for this particular yes ma'am and that was invoked by judge well at the close of the first day and we did not fall in emotions so i'm wondering then in the in a sense if you feel like you've gotten satisfaction assuming that of saying look obviously that the disciplinary sanctions aren't really your bailiwick i know we've been back and forth i don't want to revisit the lengthy argument that was made on that before but suspension your honor i have to be honest with you he has also appealed the attorney's fees so i guess we're here defending the attorneys because we haven't been satisfied yet and there hasn't been a father all right with your i'm just unclear on kind of what you're saying about the attorneys it's a judge i guess this is if there are two separate questions for me the only authority that we have to be here in front of this court is that judge folk the judge boyle invoked her and here an authority that's a fact that  liability on attorneys fees for both mr rad bill and mr myers during the course of the order she she says i am not invoking nine hundred twenty seven are not going to deal with the nine hundred twenty seven because i do not believe it addresses the problem that is before addressed the nine hundred twenty seven issue but the other issue was you said you had concerns about the lawyers in this case in terms of their ability to get along that this was just an ongoing contest and that we didn't get along about anything and i know i recognize i'm going a little bit out of the record here but i just wanted to assure you you are i offered to settle with both mr rabble mr meyers before any of the sanctions hearing to happen and my offer to mr randall we didn't talk about the settlements i don't think well i  need to get along in other cases we're going to have a whole lot more of this and i don't want this this isn't this that you all shouldn't be here because ition it transpired the way it did this man and all this calling each other names and all this stuff in your organization championing how they are how they're stamping down on the people who would dare to represent dennis all of that is not the highest and best of this profession but we really probably should get back to america and i just that's more of a lecture than it is meyer specifically was the one who lied about the in my opinion it was a lie that he told the court about the forty five thousand being a result of a rogue klein we put in our brief the exact quote from what the exchange was between judge boyle and mr myers where he said that i was not aware that this client never sought that i would have told him not to do that and that this was a result of a rogue thing and that is a very very short summary of about four pages in our brief if you'd like to cite judge in a written report ok a in that is a very specific thing about the existence of the forty five thousand and it being a lie in his argument he said i was not aware of it then we get the billing records that indicate that that that the one that showed up on the last day of sanction had been provided to mr meyers and that he had received it from two different sources i understand their argument they're saying we're misinterpreting the billing records but the billing record shows the actual december sixth memo from the primary thing that's the first thing the second thing he did that in terms of an alive was really what happened in the scarlet case when he told judge boyle in two different places in the record that first that mr revill did not work for him anymore and very next day he's representing the firm in front of judge hughes and judge boyle took specific issue with that he has to finish the sanction problem city's cause which he was he didn't work for the firm anymore but he had to finish out the sanctions that he's not taking on cases and how can that be clear and convincing it's so ambiguous what to me is clear and convincing because he could have said judge well other than appearing tomorrow in a sanction hearing i have nothing else to do with him that is not what he said he led and he led judge  to believe that they had no power other has been issuing our existing workers something he didn't he didn't qualify he didn't qualify and so in that sense that i understand what you're saying judge all right but that's not what he said he didn't he didn't give any qualifications said we're done we have nothing to do with him how can he be sanctioned for either of these things without having gotten notice that he was because of some of the vote though both of these statements are during times where he's not actually one of them he's not on the stand or anything he asked actually asking questions during the time about the forty five the the this is during his talking to the coup or kind of in between in he was they were mr read bill was responding to something so how can he be how can you be sanctioned without a proper written notice of the i'm not talking about monetary sanctions i'm talking about suspended which we treat under the contempt standards and if you look at tests masters and things that required a written notice i i understand your honor i think judge boyle gave him a very lengthy verbal notice about what she was doing based on the fact that he lied to her about the forty five thousand dollars in her opinion and it is a very detailed notice we be set the senate and our brief it goes about three pages where she tells him i have concerns about your behavior he did in fact that first day his his manner is judge well described it was got her ira he really was offensive to her we were concerns about your behavior and i'm not saying she knew is different than you can be suspended from the practice of law we require written notice  you are i don't i don't believe in the crow case they gave that kind of written notice that your chest masters did you read that and we're looking at that the court told us the crowe case is the one that we're sort of looking at in this and then i went back to that and if they did not do that kind of already is is linking the two as the same effectively they may be but i didn't see a case that directly address when it's a suspension as opposed to disband what about the attorney's fees i mean if we were to say disagree with the suspension for other reasons that she was concerned about his behavior and his role in the case and talking about the lying because that's it's very clear that she's talking about this i do think she gave him verbal notice she's not given notice under crow i don't think it has to be written that's my reading  test masters i don't specifically remember the language on that that would address the many issue your honor to be honest if you would like for me to break it up to have it's about the content it's so i'm just linking it together in a case that has that  m it just one more thing on the notice did he complain to judge boyle that he had failed to receive specific group notice of the charges against him and was therefore unprepared noman not at one point he asked for a continuance when we came the second day to get additional evidence and in fact judge judge boyle gave him a continuance and allowed him to file it which is why we brought the additional evidence on the third hearing and she told him very specifically go get whatever evidence you want to bring forward because we're going to look at this now so she she gave him an opportunity to do that he never said i didn't have notice he said i needed to fill time which she gave him ok the case that you're saying that the poor does not step foot does not separate the attorney suspension and the monitors it treats it all kind of this one package but i have a question assuming arguing that we were able to separate it out and some of our questions they have gone into bringing it up we don't know what the amount she gave a formula she gave a formula but she did not give a specific dollar amount so i suppose the court could say judge boyle's formula was appropriate i think her formula was that she awarded like a portion of the trial and then appeal if once the number was given they could appeal that it's too much or not appropriate i'm afraid they could appeal and say it was too much judges that because that's only where it's kind of not really the only reason it's before it is intertwined that the where the we have jurisdiction because it hasn't actually been awarded yet yes ma'am i agree so they could argue that it's a sound that should it's too much of that the formulas banned in the next appeal they did not address it right this appeal so i think they could yes ma'am ok so i don't know if we should get into talking about the pale ian and whether the how could he possibly be liable for all the cost and expenses of the sanctions hearing whenever he wasn't even in part of the sanctions hearing and there is also the issue about  hasn't finalized it so we could rule that there isn't no clear and convincing evidence of anything i would support anything we could rule that way you could we could also affirm whatever that mean and then it goes back for fees to be determined or we can do something in the middle ok as we sort of did with brad bill we affirmed part of the sanction when you're the suspension and then affirmed essentially liability for attorney's fees but of course it went back on the amount and so then the question on the amount would be in my view with mr meyers does he if you find that there is sufficient evidence to support a sanction of attorney's fees against him is he tagged with the same amount as randall necessarily  and the judge said jointly and severally but when you get into it you know that first day of saying she would have been held whether he showed up or not they're going to go after radel is some of the rest of the days would have been held without him because of all the back and forth with radil and so therefore should he necessarily be tagged for that i think your honor that the fairest thing to do i mean at the moment that he filed that arizona bar letter with judge boyle things changed so from that point on then that's probably fair for m to be considered the firm i think should be on the hook for the trial itself where i ever see it but i bet but i don't think it's fair to assume mr meyers individually for that the amount of the trial itself which is what the judge is you're not seeking the trial the only only the only has it's here have just hangs is that if the court if i could see how judge boyle could consider his filing some of the pleadings may have played a role but i think her actions were really directed is his behavior in the courtroom so that's why i'm doing it for the arizona letter had it was a question received any funding from the association of credit collection professionals or any other entity connection with this particular deal let me be clear judge enron i didn't request anything myself if you're asking did ari be did they requested generally some funding that was assisted to help to pay for justice mostly and we did receive enough to pay for judge mostly and some funding but not a great amount of happy to tell you he'll unlike the other one where you didn't get funding you amount but yes ma'am to cover the the additional cost i'm happy to tell you what it is it is if you would like me to judge or not going on i think the bottom line is you're you're poor you're getting something for the appeals but i didn't at the time you know i have not you were saying you weren't getting it is i thought you told us in the other appeal no i think i said that we had been promised i believe my letter said we had been promised some funny bill had not yet received it we have since that letter received funding for to cover justice mostly and some gym mostly and some a some of our costs i have been told we will be getting some funding for this we have not even submitted anything to them as to what judge mostly time was and a but we that we i thought we said it was no harm no foul because you haven't got the money in the last case where i didn't read that your honor i know the same thing and oral argument will be discussed about it we didn't your honor we didn't discuss about it or larger afterward and no we didn't know about it in dallas he is not covered by my client's insurance policy so my client asked was aware that his funding for appellate stuff through the or so ca sion as general funding available they applied for it they received some funding that covers just this mostly he has been paid on the on the on the miers appeal i'm sorry on the read broke hill we have not yet submitted any funding for him on the miers appeal so in to the extent that the insurance company is are in be reimbursed part of the money that for costs like for example some of the costs that are related only to appeal i have not personally been paid anything but just when we said to braun don't make a right in the opinion that make you it was i had to take to take the money then i made it wasn't actually going to me was going to justice mosley and i felt he deserved to be paid for his work on the brief get out if that was  just it's just seems yes it's very it's a very unusual case you understand i do but i'm trying to make sure that there's no five in t's influencing the prosecution of these lawyers ok we receive no money at all for any of the sanctions hearings a point in time we didn't even a pause for and you know leading to the issue that we were going to have to we worked out we needed to hire second appellate lawyer who would not be covered under the policy and in my client applied for it we did receive thank you and i apologize for my call judge but but but if it sounds like i'm trying to the truth of the measures we have not received monday in this case do well maybe you need it and why we were concerned about the press release i don't think it justifies anything regular meyer's it done right so that's why the two wrongs don't make a right statement makes sense to me big but it is concerning to think that this whole thing is really a matter of trying to squelch somebody representing debtors because that isn't proper and i understand that judge haynes if if if in fact that we had been paid from the very beginning of the sanctions hearing and that that was being initiated by the outside source then i think your concern would be but this is the same thing is if you're a member of in like if you're a member of natca which is the national association for consumer affairs they have funds available that attorneys if they think an issue is important that they can apply for to assist them in filing for appeals i'm on a judicial i was the chair of this you disha committee and what they did was they look at amicus briefs and in it cases their own peals they're not generally going out there and filing bar complaints or finding those kinds of things i don't know of any part of the organization that does that i can't say i know every part of the organization but the committee that i was on was so we're looking for cases that we would be supporting on appeal an amicus brief because appeal issues for example in fish shifting cases have to do with whether or not they are going to war all the fees in a certain case that is of interest to the industry as a whole so it's no different that any other trade organization but you understand why we don't like i'm sure these answer and i do think you're you need to relate to the organization that while i think it's totally legitimate to be concerned about whether fees are recoverable or not and as an industry trying to support lawyers or advocating in a particular way that's fine the concern i have is the way this was posturing is like me and we've got these tell to make misstatements to judge boyle but this is the short answer is if it's one year for mr rabble than them out for mr meyers as the court knows your order came out after our briefing but yeah then i don't think the court can give more than one year for m i think that's only fair to get less well in my opinion judge he lied to to judge boyle about the forty five thousand and and he should have known better you talked about the duty to supervise he did not he either paid no attention to what this guy was doing his suggestion is to judge what i can still remember the day when she found out he they never talked to any witnesses before they put him on the stand i believe she said that was malpractise he certainly wasn't supervising i do think you have a duty as a the managing partner of a firm to actually play a role in what's going on that's that's that is happening in a case where your boss what bothers me more about mr myers than in another situation would be indicate for example mr rebels brother was supervising him supposedly inhaling the trial the problem that i have with what mr meyers position was is that his argument in his brief is that he came to the sanctions hearing to discover what was wrong  you were a managing partner in a law firm and your sociate has gotten themselves in in this kind of hot water you don't wait to go in front of judge boyle to figure out what it is you go and find out and you come into judge boyle and you say what i think every other attorney would say i think what justice reveal he was referring to might my sociate screwed up judge he will not do this again i will make sure this does not happen i am up i apologize on behalf this is the statement mr meyers made as his closing argument into the sanctions should have been all that he ever had to say the very first day he should have come in and apologize to judge boyle for mr myers mr read the line and he should have said i will fix it if he had done that judge all right we wouldn't be here but he instead of doing that he what he showed was that they don't supervise the actions of their tourney's and not only that they are going out making representations about their abilities and tweeting that they won on the white case while reading hearing after they had lost how do you do that you have a duty to the general public that mr marston not take seriously and that that's my kids and that's my concern thank you thank you so what i'd like to go back to here is throughout the presentation what is the clear and convincing evidence that mr meyers gauged in that faith conduct and there were just a couple of things of this five day hearing that were mentioned and i've i would like to address those because i again submit to the court there is no evidence that mr myers engaged in this sort of bad faith lies to the court that have been described he didn't do that the billing records do about so instead of saying i'm sorry i don't know i need to go look and understand this better i'm sorry your honor i should know this but i don't he just starts making representations i'm bumbling through this which is much like what  questions about the forty five thousand dollars the questions started with mr miers asking mr rudd bill with respect to the memorandum that you received did you agree with the figures and he said i didn't agree with these figures mr myers can only know what mr brad bill is testifying to and that was the same position that the second counsel that appeared to represent mr rudd bill took they were not sanction for advancing that because they could only know what mr ruddle said same thing applies to mr m now here's what's critical here and i would urge again the court to go back and take a perry careful look at what this dialogue is with the court of the sanctions here because what has been represented in opposing counsel's brief is that this is the l when mr meyer said and there was never anything presented by dr white saying here's how i couldn't teach a class for five thousand he said according to opposing counsel the smoking gun that makes that a law or judge boils on a hi is the fact that the memorandum exists that memo that talks about the five thousand dollars for teacher so when meyer says there was never anything presented to us by dr white saying here's how i can teach the class five thousand they argue that's  take a look at this record i urge you to do that because what mr myers actually said in the very next sentence to the court is that and when he did say this in his memo he didn't we didn't agree with it so what is he talking about the the very start of this exchange with the court is miers asking bill on the stand the content of dr white's memorandum did you agree with this is a matter of law and logic mr ruddle said no the judge turns miers what does all this mean well what it means judges we didn't agree with the figures and there was never anything presented how he didn't get the five thousand but when he presented it in the memorandum we didn't agree with it the argument is that mr myers lied about the existence of this memorandum and that it surfaced on day five of the sanctions here this is day one of the hearing mr myers is asking rather bill about the memo that contained the five says i didn't agree with those figures i didn't agree with it that explained which is a totally different mean which is only one of several stories randall told and then meyer is basically starts sponsoring different stories on the same forty five thousand i mean this is the problem we have in living target on this what really happened with this thousand well i don't i don't agree judge and here's why mr myers never offered any explanation as to just what the explanations to the court was he didn't he doesn't understand why mr ruddle explained it to the district court the way he did mr myers didn't sponsor any explanation about why mr rad bill presented you know that exchange with judge boyle about work was disclosed or wasn't disclosed didn't say that the only time an explanation is offered at the same sions hearing about that exchange that occurred at trial is when mr ruggles second counsel stepped in and question rather go when he took the stand a second time and said let's talk about why did you answer judge boyle's questions this way and the explanation essentially was i was confused but just mr myers have a little different obligation than just any old person hired to represent brand building because he's there on behalf of the firm which is also the subject of sanctions and he's there is a representative of the firm who is responsible for the conduct of this guy mr revill as opposed to you for example are not responsible to the conduct of mr abbott or mr myers but mr myers is responsible at least as corporate rep of the firm for mr randall and he doesn't bother to find out what really happened with this he just goes in there is as i'm here to learn so he's there on an investigation ascensions here which is need a good representation of mr  at fulfilling his duty as corporate rap to come in and understand what happened and explain it to the court and take ownership as judge really suggested of any mistakes missteps that were make but the reason i don't agree with that judge is that this exchange that started the holes you know what they want to emphasize is a lie it starts with mr myers trying to explain to the court that the entire reason mr rugg bill didn't ask why at trial didn't you suffer the forty thousand dollars in damages and that his question was more not you assume about what is the status of your lungs he asked rad bill so about the forty thousand that came out in essence what's the reason you didn't go fishing for that figure mr testified in truthfully we got a memo from dr white we saw it i didn't agree with it that's why i didn't ask about granted when that exchange came up at trial he got tripped up when he was answering those questions no doubt about it we look at that transcript but mr meyers wasn't there and when he tried to explain that to the core the court turned him and said so your position is that you weren't aware that he was going to testify about  mister rabbit i just testified at the hearing never was i was i didn't agree with those figures didn't think it was going to save what else could mr myers tell the court so the judge turned to mr martin said what does this mean what it means is we as the farm didn't know he was going to save us that's what he said that's truthful that's borne out in this record the arguments about mr meyers somehow lied about he knew of this memorandum billing records don't reflect it he's the managing partner of reform is not handling the case he's got according to them too many people supervising mr rabbit off and we know that the tech that was supervising this arrival testified that he