he was in distress at all your honor he resigned and the nd part of our appeal is that he misrepresented to the court that the lightbox injured by bucks ventures had agreed that he would withdraw towards the close of the case two incidents are in play here your honor it is the november two thousand and seventeen renegotiation of what was a contingency fee contract seventy five thousand dollars up front was a contingency fee into an where said and i believe he's going to contend this morning that he had a contractual right to drop the case in the middle simply because he considered the contingency fee no longer worthwhile to him  to stop all work i have a contractual right to start charging charging you hourly fees in the us and both of those are incorrect he's going to take a different position but both of those statements are incorrect and he leveraged those misrepresentations of what is  what the law is and what was actually in the contract or the judged found that acting appropriately in demanding an hourly fee agreement in the middle of a case simply because he determined it was a not going to be worthwhile to him the court found no cause here because there was no cause the two issues they raise about the amended agreement and withdrawing on false pretenses with amended agreement it benefited them under the standard that one looks that they had council they reviewed it carefully they gave input and they got the input at that point i did initial agreement with a cause they also complain about that they fully agreed to to the judges here and i have the side to it as well and which i can give in a moment but basically in that case of two thousand and eighteen they are accord affirmed a trial court happen here and another distinguishing factor is that in this case the client was a poor manager global managing director lehman this was a very high status thinks venture and he had plenty of counsel he'll bordering granted another but you are and will and a wonderful way to distinguish that is in our instance there was none of that it was true all the cost simply provided that if it wasn't worth while because he wanted his chin lower rated as he could get so we did that and hourly rate then their idea was to help the client we reached an amended agreement that at the normal hour we're ready and they only had to pay one dollar rd of the hourly rate and the back and two thirds went to the back only to be paid by y but which hourly rates agreed upon under the agreement or the amended agreement and that's what happened in the amended agreement he stopped paying and he says it was a wrongful withdrawal because we just said it we said it was about communication and there is no basis we spent seven hundred hours on this we had a number of people working on this we did nothing wrong to forfeit all of our fee as they were seeking is is totally inappropriate in judge called sa that he pretty much things brit dedicated lawyer work nights weekends nonstop keep everything to them and they make up this caricature where my saying what we have what we want to retire hourly rate now under the agreement we agreed to that becomes fraud and the rest none of that is true with a caricature and judge coat clearly saw that she knew the party she saw mr owner testify she knew he was dealing with a prevent as they paint themselves as a neo fight like some of the be taking advantage of judge no choice but to do motion which was we just can't afford it and that was what was agreed on and you are not speaking to the various things are already order issue of facts or i did some rejection standard she saw there was no issue of fact there were it was an even even close and accordingly there was no basis the need need for a hearing and generally if the allegations are were played laundry is reasonable if you disagree i will immediately cease representing you nothing like that happened here i will point out to it also again the with another one of the major points is that well when we did the amended agreement even though we were giving the litigation in other jurisdictions appeals litigation like i said now in the state court however that's correct that was placed in the november december two thousand and seventeen with an amended agreement under conditions like i said of attorney misconduct