set the defendants for the father playing a fast one i'm not going to say it's their fault that he did it the problem is that when they knew this class was in there saying you're never going to able to talk your father down they also knew acts and the statements between what was in the fear remit with respect to what they would have available to investigate case to secure witnesses in view of the dead man's act where he would not be able to testify to his relationship with his mother right i think that it's not as simple as just one statement and i think that's what it was that's the case is important because it has to do with saying look we can get you know their real view of the case all along was this is a nuisance take it for fifty percent because we don't typically take this case i contingency basis and they came back and said yes we'll do it and between the increase in the returns i think there's an inherent statement that there's going to be an increased risk to firm meaning they already have a fifteen thousand dollars cost for care expense retainer they're not going to lose any expenses so why are they saying we're going to have to actually get more of an interest in the case we're going to take it on because there's a risk if authorities in the staff are really putting time there are no medical records obtained to try to prove that up and they there there's no there are no depositions taken of anybody on the other side there's going to make those things may go toward whether there was legal malpractise worth what does that have to do  that they misled him to think that it was morning because they say just because they charge the higher contingency that's not the only reason i think it's because of the way that they handled the case after they took it on where they just didn't do some of the most fundamental basic basic work that they find out that you know he's we've got twenty five million dollars stated value and the attorneys say that's good enough and he's going wait what happened to seventy five million and they're saying no make whatever they do not to do that work he even got those records that's where i thought this is so unusual that you would just take this case and do the turn minimum producer on the client not take the defendant deposition and then go right to mediation they were ready to take two hundred thousand dollars at the end of the first day of mediation and else is important here where i think your honor had said earlier that on that basis that playing that you know he knew exactly what he was getting out of his settlement and i think the bottom line is he didn't know that at that time case that dealt with a similar situation in that you didn't have a specific statement where something was actual why but it was well the statement was made and there were indications in this conduct all those things combined to say as a whole what what they're at words and actions combined state was that they saw the case as something other than a nuisance and so by our bison making those affirmative statements as a whole as they came together as a whole was a statement that wasn't true and also because here's the omission of the fact that they saw the case as a nuisance and they never tell so you get a hug if a client goes to goes to an attorney and says i need legal representation  that would not be no but i don't think this is wrong because i think this s to do with what the terms of the agreement were and what they actually did in representing him and how they actually handled the case so barrow's it's not just a matter of there was an opinion there was a matter of treatment of x laws and his future conduct with respect to trying to contact his father in those things he doesn't know all right i don't know what the situation here is and i know before i start taking actions i've got to know very stink about it and first of all you've got outs this isn't a negligence claim the claim is that they did something intentionally but putting their own peculiar interests ahead of this by saying whatever we need the agreement where we have to get out of your and get our feet and didn't worry about whether that's something he understood or whether he knew that well you can try to contact your dad but they might come back if you they have backed off and  it doesn't understand that scientists settle it's over the fat lady his son of there's nothing more to do when you when you give up your rights you give up your rights people know that well yeah i understand that judge i just i think that the issue here is that you see that's the problem there isn't any leave that in there indicates they were just putting anything in there they needed to get the other side to say ok well science they can get their feeling that i lied i don't dance you know that's your view of it but even if we take your view and we don't even listen to the other side i don't see where  were really interested in doing that they were not that they were concerned about his interests they were concerned about getting their money that day we have it we play our facts but the reason we're inferences fall from the ad i don't i don't believe we've played off the pollutions on that issue i think that we've with respect to the allegations and a reasonable inferences that flow from those in my client's favor big he can prevail in front of a jury on that issue you know i guess you could make that argument any contingency fee it somebody could diet relieved of any obligation to be attorneys that's what they were asking so it was exactly as the point the court pointed out something that was in the past this was not something that was appropriate for declaratory relief legend and to the country there could be no facts alleged because there was no guarantee about the outcome and that was specifically said in the agreement that there was no guarantee that there was no guarantee that any experts would specifically used or that any particular  we and i don't know that was specifically alleged i would expect that any credits that would have been applied as of the time of the payment of the indicated that he was not pleading legal malpractise i also specifically pleaded that his father had to be seated hatred of him i thought there were facts that the court had a record that absolutely support of a finding out was properly stricken and the person in the complaint was probably stricken and the case was dismissed with prejudice there were no facts and there was no tender pleading even offered to the court that might things like yeah sing the farms on the hook for all right i think that you know that was one of the things that in judgment mecca i pointed out when she stressed first complaint was that she said you know this was over you know the slipping started over a year later and that was not true it started almost immediately after  understand what you are saying that you know well you know how long does that go on but i think that where it started immediately after and it arose out of the settlement agreement that his own attorneys approved i you know i think that is i think it's are our own usual and i think that's that if there's any question on that it's got to be resolved in my client's favor as to what the requirements were and whether the representation continued these all seem to be very fact intensive questions discussion about what he knew at the time of settlement agreements and that's our you know there are there been a lot of claims made by the defend in this case about just kind of contrary facts and i think where they said you know what we got medical records and guess what doesn't shellacked us american acidy we called your independent witness he didn't say who they use not a sudden it's a nuisance case and i would be in a very different situation if that was the case but that they never learned anything in their handling of the case that would change or you know give them some sort of basis to say oh wait wait now it's like a nuisance they treated the same way from the beginning there is nothing other than legal malpractise i think i would i would ask the courts to reverse and allow us to repeat we are not to change our fact we inspect the state to claim as is legal malpractise but again i think if you don't have any a something that's not practice but if you intentionally do something that's certainly not meet the standard here as well