morning good morning my name is steve harvey i mean attorney in philadelphia please the court my client is appellant james rue we are here and in advancement action under a contract and we're in court because of federal diversity jurisdiction the underlying case that was the basis for advancement was brought in federal court in new jersey against my client mr root the advancement action to prevent force his rights to have his fees for that action was brought in the southern district of new york because there was a venue provision in the contract there were hard to be done so so that's why we're here we discovered that contract requiring advancement in late two thousand and seventeen and percent of our then standard rates which is the agreement that we had reached with our client when we gauged this in may two thousand and fifteen so when we met with him he didn't have any attorney he was being sued by his former company with very serious charges and we agreed to tender take that representation without knowing whether we thought we would be paid some day we thought we would win the case but there is certainly a risk of nonpayment at all if you lost the case and there was an delay in pain i thought by hope bancorp and then it was dropped when it dropped its appeal so that issue i don't believe is before the court now the only issue is whether or not the judge whether the we argue that clearly th are not permissible under federal attorney's fees statutes and she used that as a basis for denying the request and when the issue was raised we pointed out in the brief in our reply brief that this is not an issue governed by federal law this is an issue governed by contract we were clearly there under section one thousand three hundred and thirty one diversity jurisdiction the contract i mean you know she was saying look this is the contract and this is what you provided for and you don't get that under this contract oh well no i think she was saying you don't get it under this contract because it because it violates the principle of clearly the contract says we get it it's not spelled out in black and white made the point here's what we did they raised in their opposition this point that we were and they raised and they cited a federal case and they raised many other points in their briefs and we argued in this one well that's wrong because federal law does not apply here  which is the point we're making now so the only thing we didn't do was go one step further and say and look at there's this all this case law under new jersey's attorneys fees statutes and that would be a very helpful point to us but it really isn't exactly on point because we're not here i do in new jersey attorney's fees statute we're here under this advancement under contract but to the extent you're looking to federal law to say we can't do that at all or clearly that's inconsistent with new jersey law but the point is it's not governed by federal law it's governed by new jersey law and there is no such limitation so if so bottom line is is even if we had raised with the right to wait to rely on the specific case law the indian case and the other case we'd still be before you here arguing this issue and we because we raised we clearly preserve the argument that it was not waived under federal law we made that explicitly in the contract and we argued that it's just simply unfair so it doesn't really i submit well what i mean what the law that were foreign to here is the law of new jersey advancement of attorney's fees right and where is the they were reasonable we argued that they were reasonable at one hundred and fifty percent and the judge said no under this pluggable federal law you can't get one hundred and fifty percent you can get only one hundred percent and as to that we had said well that clearly does not apply we did not addition offer the additional information that there is a new jersey case law that goes the other way that would have been helpful but if we were here without that new jersey case law i'd still be winning this argument today because we'd be arguing about whether it was fair and whether but so this is not an hour that we didn't raise this is a did additional level of detail that we didn't in the context of an advancement summary proceeding that took all of last summer we filed the action in early twenty eight dollars teen we won summary judgment in  april we litigated fees all summer then we litigated a stay pending appeal all fall with two trips to this court all the entire time my law firm doing this on the hope that we would someday get paid which seemed quite risky at some points and so we argued that it was simply not fair and so for the same reasons i argued to this court and i'm just about to run out of time that it is unfair and and that the waiver doctrine doesn't apply here and if you look at the statute which we've cited in our brief