now the first issue is whether the court heard in dismissing dust us history does this was the individual who actually filed the patrick cons petition for bankruptcy as well as the schedules in the bankruptcy pursuits of the northern districts control the attorney client relationship because it seems to me that the federal courts don't tell state courts what constitutes an attorney client relationship that attorney client relationships can be terminated even did file ation of a federal district court rule and so why why does that make any difference where it does make a difference because even as of today this morning mr does this is actually him why didn't they go with him when he left the firm to go else it was never know they were never notified it was never an issue in chapter seven and there is my point is that maybe they really weren't his clients as much as the firms clients and the firm and the clients would accept a substitute attorney justice well as mr modesto with the court will not write and then the question is does the court decide whether or  information with respect to what the subsequent attorneys did and then we have a case out here in illinois and so i think the subsequent attorney has an opportunity to correct the correct  individual tree that they've been working with and with the firm as a whole let's say we don't have enough information why don't we have enough if it wasn't just a few six nineteen yeah in a two six nineteen doesn't that presume that you're going to hear this matters outside of the pleadings and you presumes that there's some discovery and if there isn't enough discovery maybe the matters been way well your honor i would believe that it would be i understand two six one nine to mean that it would be the moving spurred to prove that there has never been any if there's not enough facts then it is the movement's job and the case should be reversed as of right now because of the fact that they did not provide provide the adequate information  then becomes an issue as to whether or not you've got the proper defendant's right incog in standing i don't believe should have ever been in it i know but that's the that's the initial issue you have to get over it and i know what you really have to do it seems to be in order to establish your position and unfamiliarity of non practitioners i think that that is a lot of what caused the problems in this case i think that if one of bankruptcy practitioners looked at this case they'd say oh my gosh problem with the state ok the section that you're talking about the initial action and other words when you go to trial and a legal malpractise case it's a case with indicators for if you agree with that yes so in order to have a case within the case the first case has to be yours and since this case was a case that along with the bankruptcy  practice first thing that the trustee does is he serves a notice to the critters the creditors have a theory and there's a determination by the creditors would like to we would likely have to amend the schedule with which generally would mean that you would like to file and schedules and does that in that notice go to all the creditors it should have but it did not in this case that should have gone to all creditors and interest if they wanted  they lost the right to see that's the problem is that it was the debtors that lost the right to sue this person well ok ok so they have lost a cause of action against this individual they they have they have lost he he damages in fa affidavit is worth nothing unless you put in the affidavit what the actual considerations here and our argument was show us show us the factual considerations where there was an intelligent decision that this claim which allegedly was worth in excess of fifty thousand dollars was considered that your duty to the creditors was considered and that you elected to intelligently abandon it like it was nothing like that it was actually there i knew that i would have it i would have a factual basis for it and the judge said it's true i don't have any facts to go on the case law he cited indicates it's their job to shelf at the trustee intelligently considered it and made a decision on behalf of all part he has a signal failure twit minister a failure to pursue is not enough and that's all they gave us here ok all i had to do was to and on what was presented to us and ninety but it's also a question of a lot not only whether the dismissal is proper but really within that with whether standing has been made out as a matter of law right ok and the bankruptcy code in yeah i or i for indicates they filed a lawsuit against will by themselves in which they had perfect standing there than to busted up that standing when they filed for bankruptcy but the but that's maybe a temporary divest absolutely that's why the question in this legal malpracti case as against the defendants here is whether the plaintiffs ever would have been reinvested with the standing against all we know that there is a law in the banks court which control if the asset is scheduled and the trustee makes an intelligent decision to file a no asset report and ask the court and the other creditors to basically sit back and do nothing all then that decision as to whether or not to have to allow a cause of action to refer to the debtors that unless he makes that in the course of his trust a case this would be a questionable well that's what the you know a sort of court of a trial in you would think that there would be such a case because of the multitude of cases that have come into the bankruptcy courts that this can't be the first time this summer happened absolutely i believe a creditor would have the ability to challenge trustees determination as to the no asset report and that's primarily what this case drives when mr geragos submits his affidavit in this case he says i did not intend pursue let me let me stop you right there again because really that's may be the crux of this case where we are looking at the interests of the creditors but maybe interests of the creditors has not earned neal and really what we should be looking at is the interest of the debtors in light of what they've been able to gather for under seal would happen when we talked about irony earlier and we have this legal malpractise case in which the fighters are saying we had a valuable case against wall ironically we have an affidavit from gar personal knowledge as to what his intentions were he could also boy stuff further and say it was my intention even if he won't matter had been scheduled to file a no answer or perfectly within his personal knowledge to say what he would have done for durham to take the next step though and say that it would have reverted back to the plaintiffs in this case is a week without us the intervening staffs established in that affidavit in order for him to do that he must say that no creditor would object to that no asset report he doesn't say we also know from the record in this case that one of the creditors did object in the underlying bankruptcy to the challenge of the destruction of the ultimately withdrew but they absolutely can object to that ok they further then go to the next step and say that if a creditor had objected that that would have been overruled and so the no asset reports th in other words what we're saying is we've got on the one hand and no as a report that does not contain a wealth case and we should treat that exactly the same as a no asset report which does contain a walk and i think that that is speculative and that is a legal conclusion and that is appropriately why the trial court struck it we don't have those facts in this case so what you're saying is that you want an affidavit that outlines exactly what would have happened during the course of the bankruptcy and all the proper leveraged in order to prosecute those those product liability cases and the bob calls he files for bankruptcy his bankruptcy is ultimately the not he sues his attorneys  committed malpractise in the handling of my malpractise case or cite my bank to taste so i was disposed to night at this chart i'm claiming damages against these attorneys for the injuries i suffered by losing the value of bankruptcy by the fact that he here the injuries that would have been suffered by a failure to amend the schedules are injuries that would have been for the bankruptcy of the state the creditors who lost the value of what a recovery could have been in the wall matter and that is what is the crux of the issue here plaintiffs did not lose value because that claim was in the bank see case if anything happened if any value was lost from wall that is value that would have gone to the other creditors so under and then if he was able to obtain substantial judge hypothetically speaking against the second off the state would have a plane crash and this is how i would analyze ak the won't matter would be property of your state because it existed titian right but the fact that he might have a tame using the old case with a new case idea that if he goes to trial against your client and he's able to establish get to that stage he has to prove in advance what he's really saying he's got a separate claim against you has nothing to do with these but you can't get to that you can't say well that's what you have to start with the proposition that two million dollars would have been recovered in the it's something that is in a way speculative and it's very very expensive so you look at it litigation it for instance the worst case it's going to cost more probably to trial that they can say that's a problem i malpractise claim is basically worthless to the state because that you my money that's going to be involved in the prosecution now is specially if it's if it's past the complaint stage if it's passed can play station parties are sitting down because there's many cases where parties have already set up for some of the discussion the owners of the corporation again it's a corporate case and it's it's horrific that here cases are also inappropriate because it's actually cause of action against the trustee and the trustee whether or not the trustee did a good job or it has in this case that has never actually