thank you your honors good morning america please the court this case presents the distinction between the word sanctions awarded against a client under section two eighty five and sanctions awarded against attorneys fact proper as a matter of the governing law at the time and gus has not contended otherwise it's briefing before this court and therefore the only issue for the district court in texas was convenience officer of the court or the duty to withdraw if the client insist on taking an unreasonable or repugnant action i agree your honor that the proper course if a client insists on a course of action that is unethical is to seek to withdraw but here there was nothing in the course of conduct that appropriately narrative that act the only saying that go and simply maintaining the complete that was filed is not well isn't it multiply in the proceedings by requiring them to saw to respond to a frivolous opposition to emotions to transfer and by undergoing discovery and not dismissing what is clearly a purpose complaint under what it was so i would multiplies perceives i know you disagree but this wasn't a colorful complaint we can get to that you know let's assume that it was not role of the lawyer is to advocate for their client's interests within the boundaries of the law and rule eleven is run and within the rules of the game absolutely and your honor asked about there then you motion and the opposition to the notion to transfer venue we have cited cases in our briefs in which the texas corps had to night transfer emotions under similar factional circumstances where witnesses were dispersed and here there was is simply whether it was entirely without color given that this was a discretionary multi factor test one of the factors is the plaintiff's choice of form given the evidence that that he was suffering wait wait wait wait you're telling me he perceived this right what i'm saying is that what matters for these purposes is his state of mind and he instructed we only state of mind because he testifies to it in his declaration no it doesn't i don't know who put words to the computer or who typed it but it is a declaration from him and it's a declaration which contains no admissible statement i would suggest your honor that a declaration from a witness is competent as to that witness a state of mind not unless it tells you the underlying foundational statements of evidence so i would say here what matters is not whether his perception w correct no no what you're saying is what doesn't matter is whether it was admissible evidence is that we are to know that no your honor i what i'm saying is that declaration from a witness as to the witnesses state of mind is admissible as to that subjective state even if the witness is wrong and even if the witness has no foundation for the predicate facts giving rise to that mental state what matters here about the declaration is simply that it confirms that the decision to the statements that mine's lawyer insinuated that he would fire me for example that only goes to his state money doesn't matter if it actually happened so i'm saying that the witness is a competent witness as to what the employer what he pleading correct the evidence that was put before the court to that effect but please yes and again but your honor what i would say is that what matters here is that the demand for settlement from kept hand over its path the lawyer cannot compel their client to do that and sanctions against will years who are acting as agents on behalf of their client cannot as a matter of law be predicated on actions over which the where's do not have authority thanks sins against the lawyers under nine hundred twenty seven are limited to multiplying the proceedings exceed there'd be no doubt that this is a frivolous lawsuit under alice it was filed five months after all us there hadn't been any discussion of alice i think by this court by then i mean since then we've rejected  planes just like this most of them it will thirty six of our lives but how do we know when alice is directed to one specific is this method and do it on the computer that  decisions before in this case file and as the case progressed and mature more cases came out in argument and the district court agreed is that these claims are so bad that no attorney that the fairly extraordinary award of attorney's fees against the attorney was under nineteen twenty seven was appropriate and fundamental to that is the whole idea that this this whole case should have been filed in the first place and that would let you know the file rule eleven motion there was no rule of the motion filed there was a ruling that eleven motions threatened by my client against was not satisfied with the proposal to just walk away that insists that not only were tourney space which is understandable but then an assignment of all of the patents which sort of threw up  an incredible roadblock to any reasonable settlement that on your arm i believe in a reasonable settlement would have been for them to walk away which they could have done in any time despite what we counteroffer was trying to do that was that proposal was who refuse that's not true there was nothing preventing them from filing a covenant not to sue me any time during litigation which would have killed all of their claims and all of our counter claims as responsible for the continued nature of this litigation than anything else and so often my client did that but with the understanding that i mean at that point in the case it could have ended my client had no counter claims they had they had a d j i'm sorry they had counterfeiter invalidity and not infringement in texas there was no case filed in new york the appellants and their client could have walked away at that point and argument in the district court agreed is that they look at the course of conduct throughout the litigation and look at the filing of the complaint but more specifically they identified eleven specific acts that took place throughout the course of the litigation which trigger sanction on the attorneys for their own conduct require something more and i'm just not sure given this state of the record and five months after alice that it was completely non color goal for them to file complaint i mean frankly for you know five years or a decade before these kind of complaints were getting filed and were getting settled out all the top but in ellis made this so clear that this  to sue the attorney if the question would still be in place i think that with what they what they were proposing is just a walk away and you and you kept arguing well they could've walked away at any time they should have walked away they unduly multiplied proceedings under nineteen twenty seven and i'm going to point out to you that you're ignoring the fact that the attorney is it was still in place and would have been in play it was a covenant in fact into motion for reconsideration if palance admitted the pre judgment interest was permissible under one hundred twenty seven and only argued about the date by which it should begin to accrue and so because he told did not argue this in the district court  i would like briefly to make three points first what you just heard is an argument for a good faith extension of the law that is precisely the type of argument that lawyers have to be authorized to meet iti are had come down the month before the complaint in this case w than concerned that they were going to lose the transfer motion in texas and a desire to complicate the settlement process went off the cap and said what it wanted to do was walk away and offered immediately after the filing of that new york option to  matter will stand submitted