our next case this morning is sherry st says steven having technical problems here the the brief that i filed argued that there was no due process in the us that judge durkin was incorrect in allowing a judgment against the estate of what tar which i will neither conceded your honor and thus i do not believe that there's any reason to argue further on that particular point specifically the issue was favor of sharif and against the estate of suad what's are should be vacate once again page thirty one the next two issues are more contentious however you have the issue as  are you contending that there was an attorney client relationship between the state and mr stevens or was the attorney client relationship only between mr sharif and mr steve so that's an excellent should i continue your yes you can continue i mean because i actually on this bill actually i will say one of the thing on this point there are there were aspects of the malpractise claim with which the district court agreed with you but in the end felt that you had failed to show that any negligence that mr stevens may have been guilty of would not have caused you any injury and i think i would be helpful for me for you to focus on th entered by judge fox on july th two thousand of the case then went up to the supreme court and as part of that famous wellness case having to do with the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court as  stern argument he would have avoided the judgment imposed by the bankruptcy court sharif's expert offers no opinion on this then the judge goes on to review what else happened he says actually i'm like the usual malpractise claim i know what these other courts would have done and i happen to agree with them independently that there was that there was no problem so that's the problem it's a factual finding well i says so what you we worked all the way through this article three stuff but now there's been a redo and we all know what the proper judges with the proper authority think and i'm an independent judge and i'm looking at and i agree with them reply brief that's the malpractise and that's what the seven circuit stated in his order august th two thousand and fifteen and then and that relates directly to the claims of the state the a state when are at the forefront of any proceeding in federal court no i just know it's not like it's ok but what the court is saying is that once it was all detected and fixed the result remained the same but it but that's not they can't even be true and the reason why it can't be true is because the status quo was the order judge cox's default order had been vacated in but for the fact that mr stevens didn't raise the the jurisdictional issue properly this seven circuit had to enter a nd order to change that and say well you know it's a personal right you blew it basically and we're now going to allow the default order to stand has more questions i have a thirty six seconds i'd rather answer questions no ok so so the fact is that i don't understand judge  durkin's approach to malpractise as it relates to the st issue many namely the issue of noncompliance with discovery you know i do not believe the standard you know annoying under any circumstances is that a lawyer should be a passive lawyer that a litigator must be a passive litigator quite the opposite the lawyer has an obligation to not allow his client to fail in here judge there can talk the standard of a passive lawyer in allowing the client to fail and if you look at the seminal dates here judge cox's were was entered on february th two thousand and ten mr sharif that position didn't even occur for three months later and mr stevens had plenty of time to get the documents between then and then he have won the case but for mr condit and what that means under these allegations is he had to prove that if mr snowden had raised her nurse marshall objection before an appeal that would have led to bake creating jobs dismissal order and then to going on to prevail in the underlying lawsuit adversary action fall by wellness international there's no expert testimony on either issue a trial which i would argue by shirley argue that the idea that the district court would do anything other than big sanctions or order is a quote unquote ridiculous argument but there's nothing we didn't do it's about thinking that two courts you know to whom courts presented with the tact and the same law are more likely than not going to come to the same result and the reason why is that even mr series expert see the disturbers marshall objections doesn't bring permanent relief you still have evidence and it wouldn't make a difference because there's a significant record all the facts are going to be the same and i think it's worth the citing what those are brief that the movement seeking sanction is saying judge i was student two thousand and five  ting six hundred and fifty five thousand dollars judgment for attorney's speed he appealed that and didn't prosecute it resulting in a spirit review after that he didn't respond to a post judgment was required to present expert testimony and that's on the end of a lady her and he did and not only did not present expert but misters even presented unrebutted testimony from the own expert sanction order at issue would somehow be binding against an outside creditor and simply but a approval of the settlement agreement and in a divorce not in the due date or soon on the marriage and would not answer as a