appeal on a motion to dismiss and also denial of a t r o an adversary proceeding this actually deals with my own bar license and the sanctions that were awarded discovery sanctions in a civil manner plus them the core attach six zero eight six point one zero costs while i had argued that actually this was a violation of state not to reinstate my license because the suspension was only for thirty days and it's been almost a year now and the only reason  appears that the ninth circuit is the ninth circuit is going back and forth so we have taken two thousand well it's it's changing its mind i'm not sure it's going back and forth that's a different issue from the situation and the reason and that is sheer when you look at the footnote two in sheer when the ninth circuit found that hers her money that she was supposed to pay in order to get her license reinstated two they said look at the underlying suspension the reason for it in sheer it was money owed to a client of fifty five hundred dollars and in findlay it was also money to a client in my case this was money that was owed to opposing counsel as part of a discovery sanction so this isn't a case where was the state bar court found i have commingled funds or you know we had nothing to do with moral or any of those other type of customary things and that's why filed my wireless misbehavior directly to the client different for this purpose for misbehavior directed adversary and i understand you dispute that there was misbehavior but just right take that sanction for the purpose of the question for the purpose of the question it's because we're talking about the public interest it is a regular got collection matter or are you doing something i think the state and agency intended to protect the integrity of the judicial system and intended to protect the public protecting your own clients that you're an attorney's not overreaching their own client right and here they're there you know we're as far as possible as you could ever get over reaching your client here showed i stepped in at the last minute to help people who were improper on an unlawful detainer trial and seven days later the judge hits me with sanctions discovery sanctions for discovery that  he found not to be not done at all because i had actually tried to hurry up and do some that was outstanding but he found the responses to be inadequate so you know when you look at the underlying the underlying this discovery sanction i was doing everything zealously advocating for my client at that point in time so i think that that's a big distinction but the whole i mean the the the font of all of this i think is the notion that you may think the state bar takes too far that they have the ability to regulate your conduct and to monitor your conduct and one aspect of that may be your mistreating of want another aspect may be that you're doing something  improper in the course of litigation that harms you know another party and by the time it gets to them harms the integrity of the process in their view and they think it becomes a different question when it comes to them so i think there's two things going on here one is there's lots of things that the state bar might think you're doing that you oughtn't to be doing and once it becomes their business it's no longer about you versus opposing counsel so i want to can you just both of those for me yes i can and that is an interesting concept  to at that point find the latter that you know it's all now said you know you're you're you're being disrespectful to the court it could have went down that road but it didn't go down that road in this case  in this case it merely found one violation under six one over three which i have contested now isn't on constitutional right and if you look at the a b a model rules under the model rules in comparison to six one two three i would have never been sanctioned under the model rules which most states follow and now we now finally california has adopted some of those rules and the reason for that is because there is supposed to be this good faith notion and whether or not you your being more specific than i was being out but what i'm suggesting is there's lots of different relationships that the state bar is worried about one is with your client another astronomy with the process and doing things that result him you know sanction orders for and you know if you had you paid it then it would have been an issue when you don't pay out in their mind when it gets into their system it becomes something that's disciplinary and you know rehabilitative and so i want to stay longer about you know other counsel it's about something else and that's where the that's where the went to the trial judge which they should have tested the veil of mr the voidness of that order with the contempt hearing right then once you have the contempt hearing with all those procedural due process safety guards we went through these judge clark ok i'm going to cut to the chase what judge clarkson said which i thought was interesting even though he ruled against me he did can point the right thing when he nailed down the state bar and he said but look at this order in the supreme court order right and he said this is not the supreme court issuing a sanction on this in this amount of money they basically just have said for her to pay the state court sanction order they didn't for i'm hearing you and it's a probably come up again in your seven minutes are going to cost about you know isn't what's going on here is between the kelly case and other recent authorities it looks like we're being directed away from some of the we maybe we don't have to overrule it and the ninth circuit but we need to limit it to its facts so that's what you need us to yes in or you know and all the other things that were in there about the constitutional issue  you're about it you're seven minutes you get going if you wish but you only have left whatever you have left ok just one more thing i mean we could limit it to these odd facts right because my facts are so far afield and it would be safe but since all this work has been done and i've lost my license for a year i think we need to do the thing that's in the public interest and make something that's really solid so as doesn't happen to mother turn said but if the the ethical violation it wasn't willful disobedience of the court order and that was why she was suspended for actually suspended for months now that court order was entered in two thousand and twelve it became a final court order it was not appeals and through that third party now just parks and found that the discovery things in themselves were not a chargeable but i would argue that that doesn't matter they could even been discharged because once they became part of that california supreme court order they are not  under the rationale of family because of the state's very important public protection interest and benefiting society the same way restitution is under under cali however i believe that the first time it seems to me that if i were if i were just reading five twenty three a seven for the first time just reading the words i think she probably wins on at least the discovery sanction because discovery sanction is not payable to and for the government benefits it's just not it's payable to a third party and as far as the cost recovery for the state bar that's a cost recovery does not sound like a peculiar loss so if i were just reading the statute i would say she's got a pretty good case but we're circuit that have criminal restitution or people to third parties were not dischargeable under other rationale of kelly and in fact in cali it was restitution that was able to state that was and distributed to the victims so whether it's cable to the state of california  costs are deemed penalties which are quote payable to and for the benefit of the state bar of california in order to promote rehabilitation and to protect the public and the court in philly which this service court is bound by us to do that that made those  what the requirements are and sort of get around five twenty three of some of the plain language of which would require you to loose let's say one of the power suit is there is a reason why we should allow that rather dangerous to that and what can we do about it which is a whole other question long thank you very much yes please go ahead you have six minutes plus what the intent of the state bar was in shopping the legislature back in two thousand two thousand and three to add in subsection which i say doyle misrepresented to the court and i think that that should be brought up to the ninth circuit because i gave you all the legislative history it's online now and he court can now see that what doyle said was incorrect it had nothing to do with taker and actually it was shot to the state legislature under the representation that this is specifically limited to replenishing their client security fund what they're asking me to pay would never end a dime wouldn't go into client security fund because there and i still see it acting like a duck collector third party debt collector charging twenty grand a pop to collect whatever amount that they want to clutter we know from the record that that discovery sanction was not paid out of the client yes we do there's no evidence of that and they didn't come under that would come under six one four zero point seven so the record doesn't say that it was but it also didn't say it wasn't the record we have is what i'm saying yeah because in in the reporter's transcript i clarkson i believe  one was very clear is that states cannot try to override these types of relief and here the whole point of bankruptcy is to give the doctor a fresh start you know please be honest but unfortunately the honest but unfortunately i wasn't found to be dishonest  so you know it includes me too it does include us lawyers although you know we do get a bad rap for a lot of things and so no matter what family says no matter what take our s a ninth circuit must follow price too i just it just looks like the panel and finley was very swayed by some representation that they believed to be true which was true i don't think you know as saying you know a state if a federal law says a state law can't say non i versus federal law says a state law says well let me tell you how we interpret that  different things ok i mean this is really preemption or just the state doing what states do which is kind of give us some ground rules about property rights and all those kinds of things but just how our system works right right yeah and but in this case if you look at which my  it's got to be a fine you can't be a class kelly even in the criminal you know in the some little criminal case that you know this type of cost is discardable you know this doesn't fit under this narrow exception and the burden is on the creditor the burden six zero eight six point one three which is the sanction statue which only goes up to five thousand if they amended it any further it would it would even be a stronger unconstitutional argument it may be a model ru protection clause i just don't want to see finlay turn into something that's going to take fifty years for us to get corrected there's a lot a lot of levels here and i and i appreciate this court and i hope that this discourse sees all of them it is just a hit her her other things it wasn't my duty to appeal ovoid judgment there's no can't you can't say can attorney until you have jurisdiction over him the jurisdiction was by statute in this case which was to go to three point zero four zero of the c c p and it says in there that you must identify the attorney in the notice of the motion so and i wasn't in the notice of the motion of any of those notice of motion so those orders were never supposed to be out there in the first place you did have actual knowledge of what was going on at least after you came into the case though right right yeah i mean that that those papers were filed in seven days later the order was issued certainly you know the second zone but there was no jurisdiction over me and that's the more v kaufman case that goes to that and then and then second is we have our whole due process just notice if you're going to sanction attorney thing you can't you can't do discovery sanctions in the state of california without giving actual notice and at least sixteen court days