was really included in the fee amplification that's the part of the application i get fees because i did this preventive point there is if you could the debtors at that point should speak now or forever hold your peace should they not that's correct ok so that really have the sophistication oh sure they do see it you see it all the time that and there's the case law that it puts the value and quality of the services of the attorney squarely at issue and if the debtor is not happy because look what happened here i totally the judge didn't even know what was going on  think the question is what happened moving forward which was the better bright new counsel who raised these issues with judge march thirty twenty fifteen march thirty one twenty fifteen what happened the clients your client did was very like the letter mentioning our practice meet they could have brought this to the court's attention during the course of the plan as an the monthly reports and so there were two opportunities to reason with the very thing your panel could have a jury now back to that was potentially coming in front of her eyes and it wasn't race so why should occurred during the first eating right and wood was something that harmed that should have come before the court or arguably should have come before the court at that time and had it done so that money would be available for creditors why should your clients be able to its money in the estate ok it's money in the sea from which the creditors get their payment if there's one hundred thousand dollars in the estate and twenty thousand dollars goes to lawyers and shouldn't have out of their pockets outside of accuracy you know it's in the bankruptcy i don't have a dispute but the point is shouldn't all of that be resolved in the bankruptcy so that whatever assets there are are liquidated during during the assets so the creditors and say wait a minute if we have this asset let's not let's not from the plan unless you tell us liquidate it so there's more money available and you're right i think a radically agreed that it's an asset to the state theoretically i mean already done in fact she's reinforcing the fact that that feed has already been worded the fact that she said something about the mouth practice actually was because that's what they were saying was it was a defense to the fish she said oh that's all well and good this means already been are going forward that in every bankruptcy on at the time with the application if the debtor has any qualms about representation theat malpracti eleven case files simulates or proposes a chapter eleven plan that provides for a payment without restriction a previously ordered previously approved application that were once that plan is approved without plans confirmed by the court the debtor has now he is precluded from asserting any claims against the professional for malpractise is the bankruptcy case the plan or the fee application is to my mind issue mineral says the plan is not specific enough and the plan really didn't mean it was already ordered previously well i think you you have both elements yes i think as soon as a court has granted a fee up occasion that they're now starts theirs is the first step in the debtors being precluded basically no fee application is ever filed for that apple never sought fees for that it was never litigated and now it's brought outside of piece for piece of litigation involving the vote the banks security interest in that and then after the fact they say oh you know we want to question that you know that the comebacks contract well that's that's not what happened contribute to the state available to other creditors crack and also the other reason being is the bankruptcy court given that you're applying to the professional who has a vested interest in dealing with machines regarding the professional scoop abilities the bankruptcy court with the feel work is a year position that was before and the confirmation proceedings that he should have green is the fact that they should have been forgiven there is that earlier forward both because of the rack of good service plus subsequent non theism it's yes and seven it's that why you think she got number one number two is your second reason because reclaiming this helpful language but the facts are it's tiny bit different because here we're talking about in the rubber case a debtor reaction against a service provider within the bankruptcy trying to recover dollars work before or playing person for money pig pen on where you look at it time how can we require the better to make the claim that because we have better is who are represented by a well regarded well experienced bankruptcy firm who picked up the know the confirmation or does have racial or caught in fact it's it's a fact that if there is no reference in the play and that's confirmed by the bankruptcy court there's no reference in that to any kind of that would support the notion that at least with respect to the relief from snail practice that that's foreclose basically but with respect to the op or i'm still concerned about the operating report conversion aspect which was never the subject of litigation or fee request and it's tough to square that with eastern mineral statement that they released so i guess the parties are so close to a claim actually litigated in the bankruptcy