arguments as i see that the disk records determination violated section two eighty five this and the applicable colorado rules of professional conduct and my question to you  is have you raised those arguments did you raise those arguments before the district court yes but before the district court they read several arguments that i know you read several largesse but it's him to me they were different therefore the argument was that the entire amount of fees should be expended considered expended and then deducted from the gross amounts collected that was one of the arguments and then the second argument pertaining to the ethical issues  that was that all of that was consistent with it all of this and that the colorado rules of professional conduct would require that there be some discussion about how these things would be handled  deals that dealt with this circumstance but i didn't see anything with respect section two eighty five or this ethical issue that you're pressing here  and we are of party doesn't give the district court the opportunity to address an argument then we generally do not address those arguments in the first instance here that those arguments are frequently deemed waived i think that the distinction is whether the exact same language needs to be used and underneath in the before the trial court or whether the argument took the attorneys fees incurred were expended in mali kinds of bands as being just the out of pocket expenses not the award amount and the my understanding of the law pertaining to fishing statutes is that a party and dollars an hour which is what they had you would build them earlier and they had a yes now now when the three hundred when the lodestar comes through or the big money the molly cam is out of it's pocket one hundred chana myself how can you do that and be consistent bigger than your view was mauling him couldn't get a penny's worth of attorney fees they could get out of pocket cost but not fees that well they're left in a position where they're not out anything they're not left saddled with to run a lot of out of pocket expenses the legal fees and everything and a hundred bucks not it i don't think so i don't think so i think the legal fees were a hundred dollars and they were also obligated to pay a cost all i didn't foresee the but the other party would that the other side would be paying that i think that just was not fully addressed in the in the in the agreement i mean it took it said attorney fees i mean what i'm saying getting out is sort of fascinated me even though you clearly solve the problem of what would happen if your wife with a three hundred or five hundred dollar an hour requirement you said well the client didn't say that  you were going to have to disgorge hundred dollars an hour you've already been paid to get to keep that but on the come the other way around the say well in the event that we prevail and we get multiple i get damages money more than one hundred dollars now right maybe that was actually contemplated because you contemplated that any all nouns paid in connection with shall constitute a gross and up collect yes and you knew going in that if you if you had to kill a big one like you got treble damages or something like that you might end up getting quite a lot of money and that judgment should address that issue saying that  of the two eighty five proceeding and if you would have done it ben it took a substantial risk that a judge major would have said well ok well this national treasury would just send it out of pocket and there's nothing t screwed up and didn't comply with the rule it's you and what that rule provides is that if you don't comply with it the attorney can't enforce it not the crime but the attorney can go get his contingen that's what if there was a contingency agreement that met all these nuanced requirements of colorado law and it simply didn't mention any hourly rate it was cystitis free contingency agreement that that was you know you'll represent me and in return you get forty percent of whatever is recovered well i'm just saying that's the agreement that's entered into it well and then i'm saying what happens if you prevail and you get what you get nominal the agreement between the party of and benefits versus mitchell the supreme court cases look to it in five years just for the purpose of sending what the defendant owns the point or what what the plaintiff has to pay his lawyers that's subject to the agreement it doesn't the twenty five award goes to the party it doesn't go to the lawyer and you know that's that's the way it works it doesn't matter what the judge said about your hardware how about you boy you were or how much you're rea pays a salary and then comes in it perpetuates itself with these large field wards that it gets over and over as part of its normal course of business and that implicated the ethical rules of the splitting and authorized practice this was a well there's lots of reasons i say unto you doesn't apply to that's one of them but under very good he wasn't splitting with us we were splitting with him i mean it's not a question of the lawyer splitting his and title but whether or not where he did he didn't have anything to had argued the lack of substantial compliance with the government agency fees set forth in chapter twenty three point three of the colorado rules of professional conduct it was that that issue was before the court as far as professional decision later on of course the party is the only one that's entitle to request that he and then the distribution gets carried out according to an agreement and this kind of us situation was was dressed in black versus  er on the supreme court case where again the i think the the appeals court cut back and woops fee from like seventy five hundred dollars to four thousand dollars because they said that the contingency fee