practice of law that is making sure she had a signed retainer agreement and a signed statement of quiet rights and money to perform the work before she started the appeal the disabled veteran titian or did absolutely nothing wrong in this case conduct of the client as well because the client did everything reasonable in light of her medical and mental conditions to make sure the appeal was filed correctly this was a perfect storm of war office failure that next day the law firm sent a retainer agreement she then made payment via a power of attorney because she has issues within their own finances to our law firm to a different office in our law firm she conferred with our law firm that if i send you all these things and i made this payment will you file it in a timely fashion and our law firm said yes we will she then send a note of all the documents to include the m s p b p the appeal form signed and yet the lor office dropped the ball so that so the minute the retainer agreement was signed then the representation with the with the board was through the attorney correct will judge a little bit tricky because she did sign a retainer agreement the case we had multiple offices but it seems to me rather strange the argument that a law for a state to not know what the losses would be were supposed to do and therefore the law firm as a whole should not be held to its professional obligation the reason why the law firm was unable to handle this is because the payment was made to another office in the name of another person still in your office it's still the same offer are you or are you arguing that your firm should not be helping its professional obligation the exact opposite judge the m s b be held that the client was responsible for the failure to timely apply we're here arguing me it was the law firm that was responsible it was not the client why i hate to use bad words but you're arguing that your firm committed malpractise yes judge that's exactly correct so we had to say what we feel duty to to be held that she was responsible so her cause of action in a malpractise complaint would be very difficult if not impossible the way they frame all their they think all their decisions and most decisions we get on review refer to the client to the to the individual by name and that not by the lawyer in this specific case the faction from the decision of the inner to be blamed the  may be affected by precisely when a lawyer client relationship came into being here here's what i'm thinking i understand that any adjudicatory system needs a very strong or you are bound by your lawyer policy that tribunal can't constantly be looking through the lawyer and and wondering whether the lawyer is speaking for the client i wonder if that policy is applicable here to the extent that no lawyer client relationship rose until august twenty third when you realize that the conditions have been met so that it would not be reasonable for the agency to say our very strong your bound by your lawyer policy is driving this exercise of discretion because until august twenty third didn't you weren't actually firm that can you that that's a scenario so i can comment on the judge your position is that on our sureties from our office on the seventh of august she thought she had an attorney client relationship so on the eighth of august she met all of the predicates right  very strong sort of fund on the scales that say when you signed up a lawyer and a lawyer the lawyer client relationship has been consummated the lawyer is you and anything the lawyer does short of something occurred at a time when she did not in fact have a layer she was trying to make that lawyer client relationship come to fruition but it hadn't yet this in other words is a possibly helpful way of looking at it from your from your point of problem with those cases is that whether unintentional or intentional it was in those cases involve an affirmative representation to the client and we don't have that here we don't we don't have something that  said i am taking care of this judge i believe one you do not have a so i will be taking care of this not not you also have a phone call on august seventh in which the client spoke with a non attorney in our office that said you're going to be a quiet when you do these things these things she did those things i think an ordinary prudent unsophisticated legal customer had assumed that on the eighth of august she was represented decision on the fifth of august with nearly identical fact patterns to this arguably worse back patterns in that the attorney in that case had a delay of approximately thirty calendar days for the filing of a disability retirement the cold yes judge i mean what can we change that and perhaps make a finding or names the client and ensures that excuse me the firm and  the appropriate action and that is the action that we move this court to do the reman based off of the excusable neglect of the law firm the court is free to say that it's excusable not excusable but that is our position and we believe that that goes along with the richard m s p v case we believe it goes along with some barboza of the navy this court which found the alonzo factors are some more control and we believe if you look at the alonzo factors they nearly all fall in favor of our clients the length of the way here is is minimal it's ten days the m how does it differ from the brink meisner i just skimmed through it well first of all if you look at all of the chases that the board has found good comm the her no sir she was able to satisfy all of the requirements put into her mind the law for therefore there is no evidence that her mental or physical inabilities or abilities would have prevented her from making this determination that in a particular case an appellant has made a good cause determination that it was finally why you have different cases you know you can't say that a two year wait is is not said the a j did not address or did not outline what was required in order to show good call every case that cited there is a difference in what the board determined and making this determination as to whether an appellant has shown good call everyone this does not fall within the exception to dumbo and the mom in many of these cases appellant may does not rise to that level because there is nowhere in the record where mrs when mrs heron went to the law firm after she filed her after she met all the requirements there is no evidence between the time she met a requirement and the time that this appeal was due that mishearing either call back to the law firm to ask them whether or not you have found or do you intend to file my appeal in the timely manner she did to the fact that it was only five days i think is not the relevant factor here the relevant factor here if you think it's a relevant factor it can be a relevant factor but in this case miss harrington knew that she had a short period of time so we believe that it was more important for her to check to make sure that the law firm filed the appeal on time because the time was so sure so that in one day even if it had been a called every half hour so far you have to the circumstances i cannot say that one day the late would be excusable because of the time alone you have to look at everything that is involved the bo the boy but it may have made a difference it would have shown at least the she put forth some effort it would have shown that she exercised some diligence whether or not don't you think it's effort and due diligence to go out hire a lawyer and pay them well case law saying even if you are only you remain responsible for the prostitution of your c e o that's the case law that has not been refuted by this court or anywhere if you look at except where the law firm makes an effort to  in the appellant did something you get cases one case where the appellant made several calls to the law firm and he even hired someone to drive him to the law firm to see whether or not appeal was filed and you get point the board made no reference to its own line of cases about greater leniency for retirement cases why is the failure to consider  these cases retirements this charges demotion all of these cases the board analyzes along the of the longer factor if you look at the cases where the board has made of the terminations that retirement cases may or may not be different there are different facts circumstances in one case where the board sounds good cause and we manage the case for the determination it was a chase where the administrative judge for an example looked at all of the facts and first of  deny this individual retirement benefits when the evidence show that this individual wasn't child or to retirement benefits here you've got evidence on the record that contradicted what the administrat that the board said that they will make some distinction in retirement cases did not mean and we said our opinion that the board has no intention of looking at the alonzo factors in the could not call the law firm she she they all over are satisfied our requirements in a timely manner so the five days of the judge want to ask early we believe that the five days of does not make a difference  the floodgates will be open people will come in time they choose to sound appeal and would not expect in kind and so long in the every case o p m which remember o p m is already said on two occasions that she was think we have your your b god so the fact that o p m twice that they were correct only to have the kids remembered because of returning or resulted in that quiet receiving a lifetime of annuity benefits the other key factor i'd like to point out is was unsophisticated she did shoot our water from a power of attorney because of her anxiety and depression by giving us the power of attorney he clearly was trying to divest her of the minutiae of having to call every thirty minutes she trusted our law firm our law firm is one of the largest law firms in the country that handles federal sector cases we deal with thousands of n s p cases we have won numerous cases before this circuit on m s p cases i challenge our law firms record to get any other war from in the area this was a fluke a horrible fluke for reasons that are in the record and reasons that are not in the record ok thank you very much