the time from the first order are incompatible with the legal conclusion in the second the starting point is a conceptual where the judge when game made and analyzing the counterpoint what is really need made against you that you have appeal to simply ignore the different breaches that were player in this case even with respect to edwards unlawful assistance to snyder however that particular route was time to play it with the court's permission i'd like to begin with the miss i think that what they say is that they they try to say that well three must have known because he wasn't allowed to do any work for l to repass two thousand and six but what the record so this is it september two thousand and six is the last time that edwards to do work for all three but there's no evidence in the record and why he didn't do any work from september two thousand and six to mid two thousand so it's no surprise why he wouldn't have done any work after two thousand and seven because diligence question is a question are they weren't they were tearing how in this case they the effort says it can be drawn that would make it a jury question why you are i think that's the crux of the question and i think it's helpful to company we're all on the same side i could assist if you want me to do so she then response and says you're our lawmakers are him but you're you're not answering the question that i ask you know i'm packing facts whatever that is the facts that are that are not specific to the question i asked as i understand what you're saying given the specific facts i mean those trying to set up the answer to their diligence was that they confronted to their lawyers bidding case and bennett said clearly it said we adopt a rule that mississippi attorneys can breach their duty to fully inform their clients and then rely on the statute of limitations we don't think there can be a more clear statement princip greater interest that we have in ensuring that attorneys comply with their duty of store disclose we think that that is categorically we've been excited but this courtney not even go there for him in this particular case because it had a minimum you have to read in it to say that what a client has to do in the way of diligence if you have to judge that alone side what the fiduciary the attorney has an obligation to disclose who failed to fix a white surface a process that was the underlying malpractise he had told his client that i'm having trouble thanks awaiting service but the case is moving along later on when he tries to invoke the statute of limitations the supreme court says you can't do that because you make a full disclosure in fact you provided a false sense of security to finance bought by suggesting that the case was moving along that's the same type of false sense of security that was this nothing to say here case but we know you're mad about it but he won't have any further context that it's the same type of false sense of security that the beginning case was was concerned about and said that lawyers can't get away with explosive e mail this is a construct of knowledge case so the idea is with a have actual knowledge had they exercise reasonable diligence and that that's the point you want to seem to point is that you would have to cases from the mississippi supreme court they say that the knowledge of the plaintiffs is judged by their actions and by their conduct in what we know in this case is what counsel them she then called and complained to wamble and in fact your honor she said she was expecting a return phone call so she calls and says she's very unhappy with edwards involvement in this discrimination claim it's past time to remember that he made all kinds of statements in these e mails that was a huge red flag to not to even maybe not a smart one but miss camilla smart she saw that he was going to return phone calls into correspondence in didn't return any of them and in fact what is belied by the point what will i is the point that what they knew or didn't know at that time is all i would like to have an advocate accompany me to meet with you in she proffered edwards then there was this series of exchange of e mails about he can't do that and this is where you get the shirt says e mails this is all occurring on  you would she have to know at that point in order to file a lawsuit who was acting adverse to her in assisting in employment discrimination claims which is exactly what she complained about and thousand and seven in other words that their claim of crude at that time in other words it is not related at all and under the statutes you don't get to even look at reasonable diligence if the injury was not of this complaint were on l three systems they were reviewing her e mails that's a record of fifty eight ninety three through ninety five in ninety seven so very same e mails are going back and forth to her thousand and seven was that edwards and courtney paine snyder were colluding together to bring employment discrimination claims against l three they knew that edwards was likely to be  ambers witness and they knew that it was either an adverse advocate because that's what putting pain off for the last we said or when do that then he's going to be an adverse witness and they knew that he had a conflict of point your honor but we do know that l three hundred steves singh built specifically prohibited courtney pain from using at work on any other places so we knew that had already occurred then we knew about the appropriate e mails and then  litigation but there's simply no basis for determining that or in relation conduct was anything other than ample and any duty this was stowed upon a litigant when you look carefully at her two thousand and eleven death is on her october two thousand and eleven deposition there is one question posed to her the question is asked was charlie edwards assisting lee and if you read in context and i said the same thing at the district level if you read the entirety of that deposition we all know depositions to be organic speaking objections related to whether or not he was formally representing and in and there was absolutely a confusion on the part of the witness where about there's twenty pages of discussion about charlie edwards assistance to her and then she norco answer that question if you look at that question in isolation it is a falsity however you have to look at it in the context of the pages and pages of discussion about the various this is that was being provided short but if she did  this explosive document they're talking about she didn't conceal it she willingly produced it in early two thousand and eleven prior to any counter claim prior to the motion for sanctions which is why i'm here you know it was her production and her participation  at that point you know and it doesn't make any it's nonsensical to believe that the much more objective objective objective reason to look at that is to is to ultimately determine that she always had an intent to tell the truth but it was known to everyone that charlie edwards was involved in her back in may of two thousand and seven and so are testimony comports with that and the one limited question that's asked her and the answer given was it was a matter of she has she says i have no clue she doesn't deny it you know she doesn't take the tack that's taken by the litigants in brown or some of the cases that are cited by guilt three where the falsity actually helps that litigant in both cases of litigation and very big difference between thinking somebody has bad professional judgment and knowing that somebody has adversely assisted the client those are two very different thanking l three knew in may of two thousand that they quit using edwards in two thousand and seven you can look at his own e mail in two thousand and seven and it said we're quote all on the same side he was the evil representing himself in two thousand and seven as somebody who on the second of all of this this court's decision in fair trial says you cannot in keep that kind of constructive knowledge on a corporation third to the extent that there was any monitoring of emails that to for anybody to depose her but there's good reasons that show why she would be compelled to respond to that e mail because she'd already received written assurances from her burial lawyers that no adverse representation that happened she also is that those are saying i learned last night about the filing of it it's complying and we're all on the same side and then after that he makes it a permanent representation to scoring it that no one else will assistance has has taken place o