misinterpretation of forty two united states code three hundred a fifteen subsection and the term reasonable attorneys fee and then why then would you expect to have your paying the rates on offices of cheyanne attorney you're hiring people from the cheyenne labor pool so your expenses would be tied to cheyanne rates why would you expect to have higher rates than might be found in washington d c for instance because the more cases in which the issue came up and so someone wrote an opinion said this is another example of location which are not going to fly the form really because all of the work was done elsewhere that doesn't mean there haven't been hundreds and hundreds of cases like yours right there there are many cases where you cal i mean hundred hundred cases where the brother party said the law is davis and show it all of my work with perform  million dollars in the case but your expenses are tied to cheyanne nine and is there some reason that you should get the same rate as someone who has the higher expenses in a different l tied generally to travel and to avoid hinton but my expenses are tied also too to the crushing financial burden of years and years and years to do that but that's an argument for an interim field war and i don't see why it's an argument for applying the former all the arguments for applying for major honor as that is the argument that that is what relevant community means under all federal cases that  upwards for the benefit of california attorneys recognizing the lack of the burn the burden on any anybody has practically in a jurisdiction where the prevailing rates are higher than washington the burden would be on those lawyers to come in and argue that their entitle billing rates out there showing one is for folks who cheyanne they come in and want you to write a contract for them or deal with a car wreck or something like that and then you go to another rate for people that want to come in the vaccine system and that's hi district court case in the district court cases and even in the fifth circuit it's in the ninth so there isn't a circuit court that you apparently psych to that has differed with the davis rule it's it's it's we come to a consensus as to break where again here we have most of our expert hearings where the expertise but because we because we know that the expert is waiting for his mother we know that that expert through around the notion of was asking for two hundred percent more than i charge my clients in china and pay me my retainer but the cook and the government also talked about the congressional expectations that these cases would be easy and straightforward that attorneys fees would be very high but why patrick case decided a year ago in a two over two five years and that was just the entire are an adequate to attract counsel to the practice and that is one of the standards from supreme court years proves that is to say reasonable attorneys fees are those which are adequate to his argument is that he thinks the congress wanted to be able to attract attorneys to take these cases that he thinks this court can take you to should notice of the fact that the table injury cases which were supposedly easy are things in the past they're all causation back cases now and they're very costly and he said those are the reasons why we should adopt a form that does not have a davis exception policy traditional for the discovery trial be easily see who would be low because the cases would be easy and they be over soon you know if you remember the table cases were around when there were table cases back in the department had tables were worked what you've got then the burden shifted to the government to prove as a matter of fact something rather than actually comes to know when the congress was talking about you know not very high fees and measuring they were thinking about the congress hasn't been with the other but i think it's a it's getting back to the what it means what are these are you arguing for the for the davis rule is that what you think be a proper it will not i think the ultimately the hometown girl is appropriate what the hometown the hometown news  you get your hometown not your body having ridden answer my question my question is are you are you reporting more stringent rule in davis well i think the answer is yes but the call cation on that at least in program congress wanted lower fees to be awarded than under other piece shifting litigation stance you know i'm suggesting that the vaccine program is very different from the type of complex the federal court litigation which is the way to make for supply that's an important difference as we try to put forth in our grief that you have here is constantly contended that these be simplified matters where the differences between discovery  standard and everything that's an argument against using the lake the matrix on there because that's per more complex with a geisha what you're suggesting is the vaccine litigation should have its own matrix but the but the matrix in most cases having a former was because courts expected when they were asking the rule that the local courts would be able to develop expertise with the local doctor and there would be more issues for that little court to simply mount to tell me that we should not assume that we have the authority to write an opinion saying you could have entering the payment if you wanted to we can answer the science question what arguments do you make you want to come in a case that's going on really quickly and he want to be paid on a weekly basis now but if mr martin might come in and say this case is five years old or i have an expert that you know has to be liability there was a partial judgment in those cases where they said there's no there's no statutory authority in those statutes for an interim fee award and yet the supreme court construed those statutes as allowing in a r not here has no express that's organized on this is there any other difference between those cases and that's one that's the reason the prevailing party here was of judgment but doesn't that make it easier to make an interim award because the fees are going to be awarded whether or not there are a prevailing why isn't that rule also appropriate here the conditions for a fee award are appropriate that is substantial fees have then accumulated and there's an entitlement to them win or lose why shouldn't so i don't know why it's so obvious so long as there's a finding that we brought in good faith the attorney had a reason to believe and then all of a sudden let's say a case comes down to make it perfectly clear that you can't win so they shape my we're out of here we don't want to a couple of years ago when we realized that we had to do something to say petitioners barton to say please say practice in this program i'm the only guy ever get to this court with the argument different rate because the lodestar principle is that it's the number of hours times reasonably reasonable rate is what makes a reasonable fee and if a cage is complicated it takes more  kind of discretion that's vested i guess who is the special master in the curve of claims on fee theory give me a couple of examples of instances in which you think in or impedes were an application would be made and you think it should be granted  expatriate but as your example stated point where there's expertise to be paid it's not hard to know all the cases brought in good faith so particular point and it's not hard for a case to have a whole