that when initially mr baldwin filed an appropriate rule eleven sanctions motion because he had previously served in one filed motion upon mr levinson mr levinson at that time this covered also that he had a nine months later to whether kearney's enter into the picture and what should of mr bolton or mr levinson have done by that point well that's the dilemma mr baldwin gets an award of sanctions based on this earl or at least for mr baldwin to renewed his ruhleben sanctions motion against subsequent counsel by sending out a non filed ruhleben motion then subsequent counsel who earlier than later ok but here's the problem if assume that accepting this is a frivolous complaint and meritless through whenever mr levinson was relieved as counsel why should he escaped liability as counsel for the wrong that was committed by him not by the existing counts of a by him up to the point of his withdrawal because his withdrawal was premised on the basis of conflict yes but we don't know what the conflict was and there's no evidence in the record you can disabuse me if i'm wrong but there's no evidence that his withdrawal was the result of an ethical dilemma and indeed i think the record indicates that he was opposed to facts to support it ironically enough votes both successive councils took the same thing when faced with motions to dismiss i'm sorry motions for summary judgment both credits both subsequent  this dilemma i agree there's a dilemma but rule eleven contemplates that if there is a finding of volatile and i want you to accept that part of it for now you can argue to the extent it's even relevant what others thought but in terms of mr levinson's activities let's assume that he filed a for knowingly filed a frivolous complaint just assume that and then when challenge he then withdraws and the case goes on for a little bit longer and the new counsel do withdraw the comply why should a council in mr love instance position the skate sanctions for his conduct for the interval of time when he was counsel in control of the litigation when there is no evidence in the record to reflect that his withdraw all was to be precise because he went to his client and said they are right you should withdraw the complaint counsel client refuses and then mr lev left with what choice that's the big question in this case what choice did he have i assume that one of them would have been to say i can't proceed as your counsel i will withdraw as counsel which i will call an ethical withdraw  it was a conflict that i had to raise in during the case that mr levinson because a conflict could not take a position either one way or another with respect to removing the offending court earlier on when he withdrew it was mentioned to the court in oral argument that the order to show cause hearing he had just said may i say something and he was arguing he was about to a motion for sanctions to avoid the very problem being talked about that is the surfacing attorney client communications and so that may or may not have been with the reason for good in this case was but it seems to me coming back to your opening comment about this dilemma that is the dilemma i have been troubled by in this case is what is the attorney to do you have the attorney in good faith finds out that he has filed frivolous action and he's got the opportunity to take some corrective action but when he's no longer a turning there after there's no corrective action that i see he can take but should not escape it seems to me sanctions for whatever occurred prior to the time he withdrew unless his withdraw all was the corrective action that rule one would contemplate was sufficient to avoid the sanctions and that brings me back to my concern that there's no evidence that that was the nature of his withdrawal right and the only thing that's that's before this court as matter of the record is the discussion that was just in the in the judge transporter that he said i thought was a conflict but  like to talk about this now you mentioned barely one sentence i think he should have developed that at that point and you have reminded the court about the absence of anything on the record here absence of any record  counsel cannot avoid will have been sanctioned simply by withdrawing from members riteish and that right now right right so he has made whatever are reasonable efforts under the circumstances to correct the violation even after he was no longer acting as counsel but there's nothing in this record to tell us that he did anything now because he may have been and rightly constrained in terms of what he could have done but there's simply nothing in the record to show that he did anything when he when we withdrew it the question was have done at that point he's no longer counsel of record there's a conflict he can't he can't even step in and say this is what i recommend this is what i don't recommend that's an ethical dilemma for him and that's that's why i defendant that submitted a pre filed motion for rule of eleven sanctions so his dilemma was the saying now that this attorney withdrew there's a new one what do i do and i think that you know that as you say there's no evidence of what he did what motivated him or what he did but at a minimum it seems to me he could have made his exercise as delusional as counsel reacted and decided to recommend to the i do it may twenty seventh when the case was still going forward when may twenty seventh the case was still going forward at that option he could have said i believe that with respect to the civil rights action there's no reason for th client's instructions to the contrary no i'm saying that that if you're asking him to either reaffirm or affirm a complaint personally without implicating attorney client privilege i think that's a narrow line and it's a fine distinction that can be done but you can't you can't confess error and i believe blame it on your client or raise anything that arises from attorney client privilege i think as a personal matter i believe from what i could read from the defendant's oppositions is they just wanted him to reaffirm her not to be firm but basically to distance himself from the original complaint that this would be a different case right if mr robinson at the artificial calling hearing had said your honor i'm in a fix i can't tell you what i told my client because of  the court will agree but they didn't follow barberin radcliff so that's as i can see a non issue with respect to the issuance of those sanctions that should be reversed but what do we do about the sanctions that were issued  however as the district court stated the claim was made the claims filed the challenge was made and the challenge refused we'd even written letters to him prior to filing a motion asking him peter give initially denied the motion and after mr levinson ever drawn from the case there are some problems with that ari first of all the court denied our motion without prejudice second the court as mr levinson agree found we had met through eleven twenty one day notice requirement third the court reserved its final ruling on that motion and fourth retain jurisdiction over mr claiming for the time period that mr levinson was in the case was limited to that time period is that correct in other words what would mr levinson have done posters with rolls counsel after he was  incurred prior quartus time and are you taking any position today on whether mr levinson had any ability to do anything by way of corrective action once he was no longer council our generously granted them well there are three flaws in that argument first of all regardless of the district courts allow also discovery before ruling finally on our rule eleven motion the focus under rule levon is  claim against our client alleging mail fraud without any evidence that baldwin he was the males alleging wire fraud without any evidence that baldwin had used the wires in and knew that they had no evidence to support that claim and so they chose to their credit not to conduct a fishing expedition the supreme court has held that the central purpose of rule le grounds for rule eleven sanctions in this case let me cut to the crux of the procedural argument that's been raised against community bank of nevada which goes to the twenty one day safe harbor provision of rule eleven rule  to discuss is this twenty one day say harbor contains some parents radical language that says or such other period as the court may prescribe in this particular case what we had happen is we had on may twelfth it was issued on may eighth but i may twelfth the clerk of the lower court sent us an order from the judge that basically invited certain conduct within five days and basically said i'm going to hold a show cause hearing and i'm going to address whether the defendants should get fees or cost in this case and i'm also now dismissing the federal claims of the plaintiff with prejudice that i'm a change restriction over them over their current attorney or their former attorney for purposes of discussing cost and fees and it was within that context of that invitation from the court that we want to head and filed a motion for rule eleven sanctions which is the motion that was ultimately granted we were forthcoming with the court and we and we said because of this five day limit that you've given us your honor this motion was not served more than twenty one days ago however we pointed out to the court that many more than twenty one days before that many months before that in fact on a couple of different occasions prior motions for rule eleven sanctions have been served by the parties upon mr levinson and had been ruled upon by the court in a manner which suggested that the court would someday be are out there hanging over all of our heads including my own please let me know and perhaps i will join in that what he did instead was to defiantly come into court on the day of the show cause hearing and continue to insist that if he were the attorney for the whole ga by golly he would still be pursuing these frivolous federal claims and that he shouldn't be sanctions because this other attorney didn't quite understand monitor and do what and then join in any voluntary dismissal that the plaintiffs decided to use and in court when standing would be the fact that the court at the very beginning of the case had retained jurisdiction over him for the purpose of considering future motion for rule eleven sanctions against him he would be in a position to make an informed judgment post as withdrawal about whether or not he lets you voluntarily the client gave him information i'm just trying to understand what an attorney who is no longer counsel to a client can do and i agree that we were discussing things he might have done but for him to join or to do anything else he could come into court i take it and expressed his views at that  point as to why he didn't do something before withdrawal but i don't understand who's joining in the motion that we should hold him at fault in other words for not have and having taken some action that he might council ultimately decided that these claims have no merit would have given him some protection against rule eleven saying sins as opposed to continuing to defiantly represent that these are good faith causes of action that should continue to be pursued if in fact that procedural problem with the standing of the case prevents ruhleben from being the proper authority for sanctioning mr levinson it's never the last true that as a result of this initial pleading which mr levinson filed community bank expended a lot of money defending a federal case that case is now being refiled the state court part of that case is now in refile against community bank and state court that's even now ongoing we don't agree with each other on very much over there but one thing we all agree on is that the federal case was a huge waste of all of our time and all of our money and all of our energies and that came about as a result of what mr levinson did if mr levinson's withdraw rule eleven from applying to him and then i would suggest that this court perhaps not wait a minute where you're jumping ahead we're trying to talk about community bank which filed its motion after he left the other parties were able to take action against why he was still counsel you're in the position of having taken your rule eleven actions post his withdrawal so basically you say you have to piggyback on the others and i'm trying to understand what rule eleven contemplates the way these sanctions are allocated baldwin who was given three thousand you were given four thousand on the new rules were given five thousand so in terms of who gave notice of appropriate time you're in the middle and so the question is that comes to mind and if i'm an attorney receiving notice from one of the three defendants that my complaint is frivolous i might assess the case one way if it's all three defendants coming at me i might assessed of a different way is there anything we should take into account under rule eleven to say you know levinson has been unfairly prejudiced by the fact you didn't sound before you left the case and could do something about it you understand what i'm driving at i do your honor and i think the only way to answer that question is to look at it from the other perspective which is we have no idea at the beginning of the case we file motions to dismiss our motion to dismissed a crisis levenson of the problems with his federal claims we have no way of realizing that he's going to jump in at the last second withdrawal and so we're put in the situation where now we're being told ok because you didn't file on time because you think gaster predictor now that levinson is going to get out of the problems that he's causing you by withdrawing your right is now cut off to seek sanctions against the attorney his complaint is the very pleading which has cost you all of this money how long after he withdraws withdrew did you never have been filed and yet the guilty party the attorney who originally filed it in pursued it has cut us off from any remedy against him by withdrawing before we've gotten around to fighting it with motion against him you know it's interesting court and they said in that case where the court had expressly found it was no bad faith there was no other grounds that would warrant those sanctions i think if you were to engage in the same sort of analysis here as to whether because of the rule eleven impression now you are i do believe this is a case of first impression it's a very unusual situation you have an attorney who has a couple of people follow the rule of motions against them they're not granted at that time but  jurisdiction is retained over that attorney to look at those again and then he withdraws before one of the other defendants who is also being victimized by that initial filing has gotten around to filing a motion for eleven sanctions and that one with through never filed a rule eleven motion for sanctions they join they jointly prior prior to that joined or they never served a separate motion as required on the rule eleven so the only defendant that serve the pre filing ruhleben motion is john ball what would have been gained from mr logan standpoint if they had done that are just joining go through the drill themselves as a practical matter the conflict would have still been there he would have had to withdraw but in terms of in terms of the procedures of this case at least procedurally on the ruhleben is a quagmire we have a separate motion for sanctions well after four to five months later and then that hearing now the order to show cause is not one of the super spontaneous rule eleven issues it's actually pending motion so not having anything to do with mr baldwin in other words that's the discovery that mr mr levinson wanted to conduct to show that there was a pattern of conduct thank you thank you very much the case of all get rich as baldwin is now submitted no no no all right we are now back in session when we have two more cases on this morning's calend