to reverse the district court on its findings of alleged misconduct which are inappropriate in the summary fee proceeding and that's all this was below if you petition it is inappropriate in that type  proceeding to make those kinds of fide exist there is clearly a well settled case law in both minnesota and the district court of minnesota that shows such a finding is inappropriate those cases are decided to through out my brief in my but i will cite them for the court here thomas a foster v parson that is the district of minnesota two thousand and five common law office of the norman graphics that's the district of minnesota two thousand and eleven and j w vs st paul public school district and thirteen or three hold that in a context of a summary proceeding the clerk who is ruling on the summary proceeding should not make that proceeding into a minor malpractise trial or attorney misconduct proceeding that is better held in another firm and sure enough there is a malpractise case currently going which is if there is an appropriate form to make these kinds of findings that is the appropriate place the reasoning behind that those decisions are simple misconduct or malpractise allegation is a question is a layered question a detail question that requires context that requires a record of evidence behind it it cannot be determined in you know the context of an opening brief and opposition brief and if and in some attached exhibits and that's what the court low did and the one at the what if that issue though is material to deciding the issue the dischord has to would not be relevant yes but we did not concede that here all right well you've but you've just defeated your argument that it's not material you're just now saying there wasn't enough well there's no facts on the record in the case or is crystal clear on this inappropriate to make those types determinations in a summary proceeded well then how is the judge supposed to decide the issue if you can't decide the question that's relevant but i don't think the question was relevant here and it's clear for that reason because making those findings in that little universe is inappropriate the court could use the other aspects to make a ruling on the quantum matter what portion of the fee petition which was probably asked for but it should not have babies authorization the rd finding is forgive me i can't even remember it's so minor but those are the two primary ones i would say that occurred to me when i asked that got to this point we did not ask for a hearing on it the court ordered that this decision would be made on the papers the other side tried to make that into some sort of waiver on our part that was not what occurred and we did ask for a hearing on this it still would have not been appropriate to make these products because this is still a summary proceeding it's a one day hearing it's not several depositions of all the involved parties discovery etc that would typically go into this type of case it would have been simply a summary proceeding one day  the court would made a determination so even if we had it would not change this creation of these three cases that i'm saying make this type of finding it appropriate and go to my quantum know it person of what we're looking for we believe the court correctly retainer that after the clients asked us to withdraw from representation we did so i think the promise is there and the real question here is the value the way you determine value reasonable value of attorney's fees in minnesota determining doing this kind of work the expense reputation ability of counsel and finally any sort of fear arrangement that might exist between a client and he and the attorney that was not the kid number six was not the kids here the court really made no assessment of these factors at all for now and as for the results obtained the way i read the district court's opinion was that napoli had no effect on that i think it was negative but that's exactly i was getting into your out of that is how the district court ruled i think that's incorrect for throttle so that was toyota's key expert i took his deposition personally and it went on for about six hours and i like to think i did a pretty effective job of some on that matter from both the other side and the court that is a specific piece of work that definitely added value to this representation not assessed by the court the district court not assessed by the other side the success on the merits also not excess by the excuse me assessed by the district court this  drove into this vehicle was a very difficult case so the success on the merits was never assessed and really should have been because it's the most important factor and it's understandable given the amount of attorneys fees here we're asking for wasn't that mission and but nonetheless that's a question that could have been remedied if the court had to deduct the fees reduce them as so many cases have done instead of completely eliminating them j w percent of schools that's a situation where the court said well i don't know if there's enough evidence here to substantiate what you're saying you're going to know it however i'm going to reduce it because there's no disputing the work a code and that's the same situation the court below but those factors are the specifically the one she started with the pulse and factors and so now you've shifted to sort of oh well if i don't meet the paulson factors then then reduce it but i understood your argument originally that the court had to address those factors and those work but simply something that the court would look to would be you know could have reduced the hourly rate of some of the attorneys that were there although we stand by those rates those are the rates for east coast attorney and national level trial attorney and that's part of the reason i think the co this morning may please the court for the record eric magnus and i may have bridget trice and quincy adams you can look through the docket in this case and try to find a lean motion by says this is a lien foreclosure action it's a summary proceeding they never made that motion we made a motion to have the court resolve the attorneys fees issue we made that motion and were fully expecting damage to the client this was not a summary lien proceeding you will never find that motion in the docket what it was was their request to be paid the value of their services quantum  under minnesota law my clients had the absolute right even if they didn't have a reason to discharge the napoli firm they had plenty of reason counsel says that the misconduct was minor well they failed to meet the expert disclosure deadline and so the economist that my clients had hired and paid for couldn't testify because of their failure they failed to disclose half a one million dollars in medical expenses that were undeniably recoverable in the litigation but when they got to trial judge montgomery said i'm sorry they weren't disclosed in discovery i'm not going to let you claim them half a one million dollars and minnesota has ten percent prejudgment interest it's a seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars claim they made a settlement demand after they didn't disclose the expert and didn't provide the discovery on the medical they made a sudden with demand without client authority we think in an effort to cover up their wrongdoing that caused toyota to say you guys are completely off the target here we're not going to negotiate with you at all my clients fired them and fired them for good reason now when that happens in minnesota they are entitled to a quantum error what what measures how much did they add to the case mr parnell the talks about the deposition of the polymer expert use one of dozens and dozens of experts this was a long hard fought trial there was no tying of that deposition to the ultimate success in this case the ultimate success in this case came from the results of all of the lawyers who stayed on the case including my clients new lawyers who had to get up to speed couldn't get the file from the napoli firm had to insist on it and point out another ethical violation by their retention of it well as the evidence on the file he says it was just rhetoric from opposing counsel it was actually market stock and de marco firm and his affidavit is in the record about the filing about the file when they asked for it how they repeatedly asked for it how they were told we're not going to give it to me until you pay the costs that we've incurred which is a direct violation of minnesota rules of professional conduct this was not isolated or minor misconduct it was significant and in the context of a quantum erowid claim the trial judge not only could look at all of that she had to look at all of th because she had to decide what's the value of the services that the napoli firm provided now napoli has an affirmative obligation to establish it's in title meant to compensation under minnesota law in quantum arrow it proceeding the contingency contract is out and it's how how did you contribute to the case compared to the other lawyers judgment gummer was intimately familiar with the case she knew what everybody did and she said you know you didn't contribute very much if at all but what you did do was a net negative now she didn't use the word forfeiture judge collett and she talked about our forfeiture claim in minnesota law is absolutely clear when a lawyer breaches the fiduciary obligations owed to the client they forfeit any fee here that she deserved and the district court didn't adopt that approach she didn't articulate it what she said was there's a net negative so i'm forfeit your fifty we think that she could have said that she didn't need to say that i think you can affirm on that alternative ground because it was clearly presented below and it is a question of law based on these facts what about the argument that the supposedly saying that this sort of summary proceeding is not appropriate for them or that meanings about breaches of duty and so poor that was the point that i was trying to make when i got up those are attorneys lean cases under the law there's a statute and it says the district court may summarily decide the amount of the lien which is simply creating a security interest in the recovery that's what the summary proceeding is but as i said they never asked for a forty one point one three hearing you won't find it in the plead i said that's what you meant ok that's what i meant yeah and besides that if you read the thomas foster case that they rely on it says the court s that you described and they had mr for and all those affidavit pretty much repeats what his argument is today they didn't have an expert witness they didn't come in with any evidence as to the standard hourly rates that you know that they charge any type detail billing records they came in after the fact when he said this was limited three page submission well they submitted an affidavit and billing records attached to the three pages which we thought was inappropriate but that was all after the fact there was no question they could have had a hearing we could have had a hearing and all the parties agreed that this judge was familiar with the case she didn't need to hear a lot of testimony we had an expert affidavit from a former minnesota supreme court justice aligning their shortcomings exact month the new firm was hired right away the affidavit from bill mark of it says we tried to get the file right away then a couple months later there's an e mail from one of the other plaintiff's lawyers michael patton to these guys saying you've got to give us the file but it wasn't that we waited several weeks or months we knew the trial was coming up so that is disputed and you can compare it was the mark of it affidavit with mr farnum it was an affidavit and you'll see that the court had plenty of record to say that they in appropriately withheld the file what about this fantasy decision that came out after the district court's order did that show that the laws different than what she applied it's not your honor faris he's an interesting case john ferris he had been representing a p i against insurance companies for close to twenty years he got a settlement of part show to justify his fee was his contingent fee agreement he said i don't have to show the other six things and that was the occasion for the supreme court to come in and say ok we're going to lay out all the factors you have to show for quantum merit the st six things  have always been in the law and it's the factors that as you pointed out he started talking about who did what how much they charge for it how did it contribute to the case the court also said we're going to look at the contingent fee contract as a factor that's not a factor in this case and we're going to look at the contributions of others which the judge actually looked at here i think that's implicit in all that if you go back to the all trip to fan case from the minnesota court of appeals you look at how much did the fired lawyer add to the case and how much did the successor lawyer add to the case when you're deciding how to divvy up that contingent fee and so i think that although judge my grammar didn't have the benefit of it wouldn't have changed her analysis at all the points that it added are material to her decision what she basically said was you didn't give me very much evidence that you did anything helpful  evidence that you did give me was was pretty weak and deficient in a lot of ways but what you also didn't show is that you didn't refute the you harmed the client evidence there is overwhelming evidence that they cost seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars worth of damages to bridgette traces case alone under those circumstances their representation wasn't worth anything it was a net negative and based on that she was well within her thirteen there is nothing in the record it supports that there was a summary judgment motion to resolve the remaining attorney's fees we just started on lean well in advance and two thousand and fourteen the a series of letters i invite the court to look at the record they're all in there so this was a proceeding  came up he is there paid expert here he was their expert and he said it several times they he is here to find reasons to misconduct against us not as an objective individual but about debates the new trial counsel did not try this case it was bob here your who did the liability portion of this trial that is goes to the fair see the contribution of other factors that's critical here there were several attorneys on this forest hopper bob patterson kathy snapped i can name contribution of others would have been critical of the five hundred thousand dollars suppose a number there's one bill in the record about that in the emails as i sent that authorization so that is what being in dispute and not supported by the record and the senate demand accusation still needs context i'm out of time thank you very well thank you