plaintiff no conflict between plaintiff and her attorney is necessary there was a conflict between the parties and the court so mr mr horne let me ask you just a factual question i know it's a bit funds yet to be collected correct you know i haven't been paid that amount we've we've stayed that order ok so here's my question for you there's no doubt that what the district court did is an authorized way of doing this and if you look at the ten circuits martina's case and believe that's the one it's actually i mean at least as far as the th circuit is concerned what the  did was the better approach to it so you seem to me to be making a very technical argument that the judge says once or twice i'm not authorized to do it the way you wanted it done having the social security administration hang on to the full twenty five percent fourteen thousand and five to fifteen you want it done in a different way but i don't see any hint that the district judge is actually the magistrate judge was inclined to do that so so i don't know what harm there was in in any legal misapprehension that may have happened well the harm is that the way  the way that it should be done but most courts don't agree with you there in the social security administration doesn't agree with you there i think the most the the commissioner's willing to say is what you want is an option and maybe not even the best option but the commissioner seems to be in no way agreeing with your contention that your system is the only one but the commissioner's o regulations call for direct payment to plaintiff and to me and there's no way that direct payment can be affected if the refund of each o species must be literal by cash or check but i don't see why what the commit was what happened here isn't a very transparent way of wrapping everything up there's an award it goes to you under the statute and regulations you refund to your client the appropriate amount and then if some later payment becomes due between you and your client that's that's for you to resolve with your client that's indirect payment and then i'm expected to get whatever fraction of the what's what holt from back from back from when enough that's not direct either mr horn put me let me try my senses i have the same concern the judge would may have and let me just try to put it to you this way i think i think what you're arguing is the reason that this is netting is better is because it's actually most efficient and it serves the purpose of ensuring without a lot of hassle or delays or what have you that you are paid in full that your fee agreement with your client is fully respected and that there's not a whole bunch of multiple steps that you have to go through to collect that's what i mean that that argument makes really good sense to me but what what i can't figure out is why what the district court or magistrate cox more specifically ordered is unlawful under either the equal access to justice act or any social security law well it's unlawful when you put the two statutes together and you look at the commissioner's regulations which call for direct demonstrate that illegality of what congress wrote in the equal access to justice act no they interpreted for direct payment know what's the harm what's the harm of doing it in any other ways as long as everybody gets paid the fee higher is the delay in payment and the risk not yet let's put it this look at it this way you're if i take egypt cease i'm responsible for them as it stands the the u s government is responsible for wouldn't you want money that was due to you in the hands of the u s government rather than in the hands of a private individual i don't understand mr hart maybe this is really neither here or there but if your real concern is in security of the funds in the hands of your client who might fall on economically difficult times or whatever i don't know why that can't be the subject of negotiation in advance when when the retainer agreement is is entered into so you'll get you know the fourteen thousand five hundred and fifteen dollars and perhaps instead of paying over to the client there's an escrow or something i think you're you're making you're putting the commissioner in a position of the commissioner quite evidently doesn't think is required for it to be and even if it's permissible the statutory scheme makes the commissioner bank the pain makes and the commissioner says no i mean they could be that but there are even some disadvantages they point out to this bank function if the client should die before some of those funds come to them collection would be very difficult in that circumstance i think no it's it's if the funds  wishes to fetch so if the court was wrong about the law and any error law is an abuse of discretion that's why the case should be reversed and reman if i can help the court with any other questions thank you referring to are internal employee endako which is known as the palms this is design for a field offices and processing centers who deal with claims under the act they're not amount of such fee for payments to the attorney out of the past you benefits that has nothing to do with egypt egypt fees are paid by the government out of the social security administration's appropriations  likewise on mr horne refers to the fact that we make payments to beneficiaries like mr non allow via direct deposit which is the same method that you know tens of millions of americans use  past even if it's to the beneficiary that's required by our regulations and i believe that an act of congress so the point we made in the brief was if the beneficiary dies prior to that time often we can't unfortunate event the the beneficiary dies within that time period under mr horn's netting approach yes netting may have created more passed even if it's available for payment the beneficiary but we're not dollars calls says that it's to make payment easier not more difficult and as the court has judge would pointed out it's made it quite difficult to the system is quite difficult and i suggest that this court make it easier thank you many thanks to both counsel on occasions taken under vice