generally a long period of time with lots of work and effort in discovery before you get the point b and point b a settlement ninety eight percent of all these cases settle before during or after trial how that doesn't further congressional int posts on behalf of the county of los angeles i think the fundamental problem with mr mitchell's position is that in the day it ends up being that the price of attracting competent counsel is essentially it is not and it is not because the nature of the proport assignment is that there are very institution of the attorney client relationship it creates essentially irreconcilable conflict because it takes from the client control bundle of remedies for purposes of the violations if that is true the relationship you want to talk about between attorney and client is rather the power to give away her power to ask then i begin having a hard time seeing waste any of your business what's going on between her and her attorney because indeed if she gave the had the power to give the fee power pragmatic consideration you are correct if it's a third party case signings or third party not a lawyer what comes into play is the case probably talked about about it being a personal injury cause of action not assignable but i do think that certainly applies in this case mr mitchell as a person the other argument is an independent argument why the federal court couldn't force a policy that essentially is invalid a breach of ethics on the part of attorney federal rules local rules incorporate the california rules of professional conduct the a b a rules and so a federal court cannot be seen to enforce a field remit or in force something in contract and contrary to those for denying payment of the few directly to the attorney and one of them there was that he did not have a few agreement at all the courts and that may be possible it held in that case the argument had been preserved there is case well out there and i think you know  because in that litigation the attorney has the continuing duty to look out for the client's interest and not their own and the problem is with this assignment at the outset of the litigation you have the conflict from day one so attorney that would be a problem you couldn't you couldn't settle with her that's for us that's ok but if if she could assign it to anybody else in the world and all entitled to do with it i say so that'll go to trial whatever after that only after that you begin to deal with the statutory attorney which congress intended track council to handle these cases i was intrigued by like hernandez's question about transferring the power of the client transfer the power to ask for fees to anyone in this and misquotes as no one in this instance she transferred are tempted to transfer that power to the which never exercise the right of course so if she can't transfer it to an attorney to get an attorney representing how can she transfer it to the county in order to s and in terms of the assignment cannot obtain the power to ask for fees and then reassigning to a bank saying look we've got some risk here that there won't be a prevailing party but i've got to live for the next five years while we litigate this case panel if you were to decide that the power could not be transferred would preclude any sort of arrangement like that and finally