to provide accurate information his client certainly could sue him for the negligent misrepresentations he would make but a third party kidnapped because he doesn't believe his duty to them that he doesn't to his client and again just moments ago we heard arguments about custom and practice and it appears that the custom in practice is that the attorney on behalf of the plaintiffs who is the party who is receiving in this case it was called the you know the the settlement it was up to that person and that person happens to be you to negotiate a possible result if possible but in any  they are being paid these are the drafts that are being sent from you is that correct that's what i recall correctly about how to train and borrowers why wouldn't the person who everybody is sure lining up and that was you attorney will will be able range with the insurance company to handle the personal injury aspect the medical bills if you will usually because it doesn't go benefit the plaintiffs the pl years for the property damage claims and generally speaking therefore when the plaintiff's insurance company pays the property damage they take the claim directly to the insurance company represent the mr betting did not necessarily cover any obligation in your argument to mr connor corrupts absolutely your client who thought his case was settled is now again before a court correct what how does your obligation to your client fit into this issue i clearly settled it for him i settle for him i pay for him but  reality and next up open up a can of worms or something but you have a pending letter that is also offered in the issue in a case involving the medical malpractise medicals heating bills where the insurance company sends a letter to the pla way i mean they're both from the same kind of tax there are payments made by the insurance company to pay for different elements of a claim of damage for their insurer so they're both started out  is what we have to say that while it may be the wrong thing it wasn't actually thrown out here and i was getting to right now ness that went on the issue really there's been no reference to the fact that there is a code of herself he could have done that he didn't have any obligation to do anything in that regard although i think it was the best interest of his client to do that but i don't think there needs to be a conflict between the two or certainly the intentional it was part of this fool process of medical versus property damage would yeah obligation to be truthful still apply provide it again my argument here is a the information that he did provide was was misrepresented but the information that was it is typically custom breakfast given is if there is a link a claim war we receive for the nation just representation of interest in iraq because they were wrong in this could happen in any number of situations that just can't be allowed it's an adversarial proceeding everyone is fighting for the violates the code of ethics or move one thirty seven or what have you but until that is it's everything up everyone looks out for their own interests it's an adversarial proceeding in the in the hundreds of years that we've had this process it's worked really well to