number of cases that said holding the money in counsel's trust account pending the resolution of the lien is sufficient no i understand giving the money to the council for its own fees is insufficient but the lien dispute trendy resolution to feed dispute and they have held the appropriate amount will get back to amount later that that would be a violation of  negotiated a settlement for forty thousand dollars in his client fired him after counsel settled the case and and health exactly forty percent of forty million sixteen thousand and eleven correct knowing if that was a case where success or counsel didn't pay over the money to the to the attorney you have the lead and i understand why the insurer might be liable under those circumstances here my my risk my question is assuming that they paid you the right amount of money and if their trust accounts you don't have a claim against that that would be appropriate wouldn't well right amount if we were paid and for all that is correct there be no you know  that's why i think the nd question is really not the determinative one it's the st question which is how much you were owed we know you got paid we know how much you got paid if it was less than then you should have been paid then the insurers i think are liable for the differs but if you got paid what you should have been paid then the the mechanisms in this case make no difference because you're gonna miss and something well at some level that's true for paid in fall we have no damage s we have no claim against anybody but lemon was very very clear that the problem is not whether we get paid or not the mere transfer of a successor council in prize liability here is lebanon is absolutely clear about that and put that wasn't on that was that was an unrestricted transport of success successor council well the so here here they made rather than keep the money themselves they gave it to successor council and made them promise to keep it in their trust look at it it later let me let me guess the reason i'm asking this is that it seems to me the essential question is what's the amount of the lead because if i write them that's at the end of the day forget mechanisms and transfers and everything else the question is what's the amount of the lean that the insurers were obligated to discharge and it's so that's what i'm trying to figure out let me sort of work through easy stuff and then ask you the hard question i think we all agree that the value of the services provided prior to discharge was one million eight hundred thousand give or take that's what the and then we all agree that the arbitrator issued an award for an amount significantly larger than that and that along the way your client got paid roughly what why this case is hard if the insurers had simply paid your client one point eight or put us or in or pleaded one eighty one point nine in your view on the day that the coverage case settled would they have discharged their obligation to record absolutely not as indicated in the spreadsheet that that is supposedly the basis are so it turns out that all you're claiming was owed on the day of the of the coverage agreement was one million eight hundred thousand it may not be sufficient for them to put that away but what more should they the collateral the debt that is secured by the collateral which are the primacy are as principal interest and attorney's fees to get the arbitrator specifically found that the state court specifically found that and respectfully i the district court to address that argument in the st instance and not in the st absence because whether or not they were bound by it they did not have the right to determine the amount and whether or not it is secure but a story go ahead yeah i do have a question if i understand your position correctly the insurance company if it wanted to escape further liability needed to enter a plea of the entire amount of the settlement and then as it usually happens in an inner pleader actually let the parties with an interest battle it out before the superior court judge in the inner plead or action who got how much out of the settlement i think you're right now it looks to me as though the way this got from one million eight hundred thousand to a whole lot more was the eighteen percent interest rate and i can't remember for sure was way less than what he was entitle to because prejudgment interest ran for such a long time and so much money is at the heart of it correct plus the fact that there were substantial earnings are in the arbitration actually getting the money sure now if even if the insurance company was wrong to only put one point three or one eight or whichever it was into the attorney's trust account instead of it or pleading the entire judgment if fraley got no as all the money was in title two it wouldn't matter consider be no damages right absolutely right ok so what we're talking about is the damages because the amount the trailer was entitle to is a whole lot more than was put into the trust account and it was inadequate to put it into the trust account so i understand it's a secures lien to put but to put it into the trust of us right it was do i have this right it was eighteen percent is provided for in the attorney's services contract prejudgment and then ten percent to state those judgement correct bank end so let me try to rephrase this question is he are you answering the arbitrator found that the amount of the amount subject to the lien included a whole bunch of things better but that's i think that's the hard question for me for your side thank your honor he only in the attorney's feeling in this case was on outstanding attorney's fees right there was approximately one but the arbitrator found that by the time we got finished the amount of the levy was significantly larger and our but you're free trader may have been wrong but their state court confirmed that award so why is not  because all the meeting here because all the issues that posted the payments by the carriers were attorneys fees and arbitration costs incurred to prove that amount not the attorney's feeling but it was something that was in part of ordinarily the insurance company where it has complete thing claims to the money just dumps all the money into an interplay heater i guess those of us who've represented insurance companies of that more than once you just dump it all in and it's their problem to fight it out and it's a problem of the earlier court to decide what to award as attorneys these two after they fight it out and that whole process was preacher minute here you might say because of putting the money into a trust account based on the insurance company's judgment that that would be a sufficient safeguard it was a sufficient safeguard for the one dollar but turned out not other parties to that settlement it was provided to the current council of record which is absolutely allowed under the law appellants mention the case of levy levin saying that that's an example of where providing it to the current council was inappropriate but in what the amount of the lien was at the time of the coverage agreement and what the arbitrator held the arbitrator seems to say the lean covered a much bigger amount now i mean the a disappeared court that says they are and there's that mean that the district court here just gets to start all over again and figure out the amount of the leader must accept the state court determination of the amount of  there's another there's another angle of that your honor which it is there's two sets of causes of action plan that are relevant to this case one is conversion and one of the intentional interference claims and the intentional interference claims are time barred and all the cases that are being relied on by the levin little and cecile auto are all if when we get back to the arbitration award for a moment you would pointed out that some of the fees claimed are can you hear me y accrued a right to or if you did a cruel right to secure is award in the court proceeding in the arbitration and then the subsequent proceedings and i notice that that paragraph twenty two dollars of the arbitration award says claimant is further entitle to recover his attorneys fees expenses in costs for any further proceedings to confirm this arbitration award and to enforce any judgment on this final arbitration award or to otherwise enforces rights and remedies under this award so it looks to me like that's just race to to cotter agreement it's a prevailing party it's not part of the actual attorney legal right so another thing that's interesting about this case that's different than the other one this thing was paragraph twenty two of the arbitrators war that was confirm that dealing with the attorney's fees allowed for fraley to recover by st when i just read to you persis right versus what fraley incurred and had a lien on at the time of the dispersement of money if one isn't they could have sundered have settled that day but the day of the coverage settlement they could have settled their differences there would be a further amount owed right there there's a lot of things that could happen what happened during the insurance company had given because we're talking about the attorney only an aspect of it not the final total arbitration award right the are willing to know or you have a reasonable interpretation of what the lien extended to and the arbitrator has a reasonable interpretation of what the lien extended to and it seems like he wins because it's a confirmed award a california law does so that leads to my question what is why isn't the arbitrators you wore determinative here is your answer because you weren't a party to that litigation there's preamps are other reason tell me tell me why i mean after off you really means q had no see it you could have just put out you could have just waited until the arbitrators settlement that is an issue in this case it doesn't change that what was done was sufficient under the law setting and sure and what it would only be sufficient under the law if one million eight hundred thousand dollars is the amount of the lien and so i go back to nothing above the one dollar can under a california law not be part of the will mean that was existing at that time the other of it's not just the agreement that fraley has with t k does not even call for that to be part of the lien the california that we weren't given notice of that we were named as a party and we were advised of this of the arbitration proceeding this all came back to us after the award k man by the arbitrator was confirmed and the lawsuit began and so  fight between the lawyer and the quiet and dad there the parties with a direct interest in it but since your problem is making sure that whatever the client though the lawyer was secured i don't see why you have to be a party to it all but because what is being discussed right now for instance your honor is the idea that you can now add post settlements cost and fees encouraged to pursue why don't you bear the last of the risk of being wrong on that and the arbitrator found that you were wrong on that but the arbitrator found that more was ok because of the cost incurred to prove it not because there was more owed at the time of of the settlement not because there was no more owed when they were fired and you remember this lien emanates from when when fraley was fired in two thousand and thirteen really could have filed a lawsuit right that this is not a contingency case they had a set some that they were claiming  after the confirmation you paid an additional amount and as your brief points out that additional amount was sufficient to cover interest since the time of the interim award but what about interest that accrued between the time of the coverage agreement settlement and the interim award the arbitrator awarded amount an amount from that from that time period until and that wasn't wave bye bye mr graham he only waive pre settlement interest so why don't you at least oh in addition the interest awarded by the arbitrator from the time of the coverage settlement until the time of the inter a been focusing and i think that was if i'm quickly going to the briefing i think it was ninety two thousand dollars and change that was the pre judgment interest a less than i'm sorry now that was on the  the defendants settled to see what they did with the money putting it aside and setting it aside or are we looking at the indefinite time period that really can wait to bring a suit that was right in two thousand and thirteen and so again this isn't this  contingency case where someone is waiting to find out what or two percent of a settlement or forty percent of a judgment and you have to find that out and then see what happens this is a this is a tourney fees that are ripe in two thousand and thirteen when just the way when you pay off the bank on your home mortgage and they calculate how much interest you will as of the day you pay off your mortgage they have a right plan from two thousand and thirteen they could make that argument  contingency case where you have to wait for for the contingent bent to take place this is where he has to hear the contingent then isn't a contingency fee type of then the contingent of then is when if ever does this money get paid and none till he gets his money the interest runs that's true that i mean that effectively fraley could have filed suit or right at the beginning or waited and the longer he waited the more he could argue that interest is  fraley way the pre settlement enter asked that insurers can take advantage of that but they can ignore the fact that there will be interest on attorney's fees accruing between the settlement and payment miss crilly that just seems wrong and that you want to use the metaphor that is that true now again we know when or pleader wasn't done here maybe that's important but let's assume under date of the settlement of the coverage case the insurers said we have a squabble going on here the attorney  if they had released other money yes because the allegiance to cure is not only the principle you know those who are saying to me if they put one point eight million dollars into court and a day of the coverage agreement settlement they would nonetheless be liable there let these two people fight about it and you're saying even if they did that they would be liable for interest yes in the amount that it took the court to settle my case yes because the amount claimed would be one million eight  hold it seems to me the buy in or pleading the amount that you are claiming because you have to it's not a liquidated some you it's got to be litigated how much you're on the other side disputed how much it was so you had to have a proceeding to figure out how much you were owed wouldn't a watch satisfy their obligations at that point if they have to enter plea an unspecified amount of interest that might be awarded on an amount that was not yet determine and he has no further claims but if instead of paying him they enter a plea the one dollar they're not done because his lien extends beyond one point every day until he gets paid and  ting it into the registry of the court is not the same as paying him and my understanding your argument right that sounds correct