filed a motion saying that they were ineffective they didn't he got help right he was concerned that his lawyer didn't have enough time before trial and he requested that a nd lawyer be appointed and the district court obliged that is correct you are not the district court appointed attorney james graham but attorney graham was appointed less than thirty days to the start of the trial on december th but it seems to me your argument is there's just no way they could have been prepared right when they showed up and the waiting when they showed up ready to try the case but the well attorney they said they were prepared this morning sometimes work hard they said they were prepared but objectively speaking when you look at the amount of discovery that was involved in the case seldom the case out of fourteen thousand documents that they're all equally relevant if they'd been review sifted i'm willing to believe that maybe he had read every last page surely the key parts and he's guilty yes and the district court judge goes through a very thorough conversation with him about that following federal rule of criminal procedure eleven he is it she explores his health medications that he's taking he responds there's not a hint in that colloquy that he is not in command of himself able to make decisions this is a tough decision for anybody to make but no hint of panic attacks no hint that and she specifically asks him under oath has anybody pressured you into this are you satisfied with your counsel he responds no pressure yes satisfied with coun l it's a big deal to take back that was representation and she thinks that he didn't the judge decide that he had not met the criteria for taking him back why she wrong well she's wrong for a number of that he was suffering from a panic attack but she links about that very carefully and she says st of all the underlying evidence is a particularly strong and she doesn't in the court room see him in any way showing signs of panic you know with respect to the underlying evidence showed that even before he came to plead guilty he had been seen a psychiatrist for pete guilty but i don't see anybody saying to the judge at the time of the motion to withdraw the guilty plea here is what you should have been looking for in the court room to see if there was a panic attack you're a lay person how would you know if somebody is experiencing that what she's saying you know just like here we are in the courtroom and for at least laypeople when somebody is having an intelligent conversation with you your  assumption is going to be there in the middle of a panic attack you know before the court issued its ruling in this case a number of issues had a court the court was alive to the fact that the attorney actually presenting the motion to withdraw the guilty p of your client during the motion to withdraw it so you phrase it in terms of a conflict as you were just a moment ago but the conflict right is between his ethical duty and then his duty to zealously represent his client not to present evidence that he thinks is false usually when we think about conflict and the ineffectiveness context it's something that's particular to that lawyer that would be changed if there was a different lawyer but every lawyer wouldn't have that conflict every lawyer would have to make the decision and perhaps the argument is that she needs resolve that incorrectly but then that strikes me as more of a strickland argument that his resolution of the legal question of what his ethical obligation was in the district it was very clear about that she was not giving him legal advice he had to make a legal determination about what the rules required in that circumstance and so it seems really it's not a conflict arguments an argument that his resolution of that performance was the fish and it was in effect still look that's tough to say i mean i've looked at rule three dollars which is the rule that mr schmidt was relying on the duty of candor toward the tribunals as judge barrett said not optional for by saying that if in the end compliance with the duty of candor requires disclosure of information otherwise protected by rule one point six which is the client rule you have to disclose to the court so the rule tells you in the final analysis now would it have been better if mr schmidt you had just come in and said your honor i'm moving to withdraw my representation would it have been better if he just came in and said you know here's my revised motion and the judge looked at it and said oh what happened to mr meager you know there could have been other things you know that that he did that might have i agree it's a it's a little unsettling to see the full nature of the conversation he the lawyer has an obligation to stop that well the lawyer has an obligation not to present false evidence but the lawyer doesn't have an obligation to take a position just directly antagonistic to his client will say to the court  to the court expert the outside his client's presence referred to his client as a good person and tell the court you know she she wants to withdraw the guilty plea but now i have a report that says that he's guilty  parlous makes things up because this is me as us if this is a if this is a conflict issue then prejudice is present if it's a strickland efficient performance kind of a classic framework issue you have to show prejudice and the district judge was also very careful to say that even resolve all these issues i turned what we'll see what did she need to resolve at such a hearing hearings are not automatic and she has a vague statement from meager if carouse had experienced a panic attack then he would not have been able to make a rational decision but what meeker quite notably does not say is and i conclude based on something you know that dr carouse or mr paralysis did know there's but his main point is the letter say if there is a panic attack and then no rational just he wasn't there how would he know what was happening on the day of this  then i won't have to have it here i know i'll be both defense counsel those that right but here's the concern i mean i think another thing we're sort of sliding over there was some concern about the way mr meeker was even being presented to the court at a minimum there's just some sense of a lack of candor with respect to it and as judge bear points out the judge also finally saying he just doesn't even say quite enough to help in this  terms of legal meaning us qualifications that would have gone to the weight of his assessment at the front well as long as you're being honest with the tribunals about it if you're trying to blow him up to more than he is to the trial different where that goes back to above and beyond the the call to tell the court that he was misled by the client something which was prejudicial to the client saying that he relied on the paralysis ward and up to paralysis the medical doctor and so he thought that  a psychologist well only had to do was file a supplemental motion saying these are the qualifications of you know me the issue was ripe for hearing before the court given the conflicting information from you know me on the one hand and we have on the one hand the letters three letters by al qaeda i think we have your point your time is now thank you thank you please the court district court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting the defection to withdraw its guilty in a lengthy and well reasoned dippin district court correctly conclude that the defendants plea was knowing and voluntary form of psychological distress that would not necessarily be visible to a lay person's eyes your honor certainly that's possible but under the totality of the circumstances in this case on the record before the court which included numerous pretrial the court was entitle to infer here that that was not the case the district court also had before it the opinion of an independent expert who examined the defendant and concluded that he was not in fact suffering a panic attack during his change well this is dr gaskell who right who basically thinks that mr paralysis is not as bad off as he says he is i guess yes guilty on the letterhead for those letters mr meager is accurately identified as a life clinical rational writes with a little unclear where post plea count arrived at the conclusion that he was a licensed clinical looking at this colloquy the off the off the record colloquy between the district court judge and mr schmidt i guess candor is hardly the word for it i mean he's he's giving some very intimate disclosures of attorney client communications and that may be on your he i mean it's very easy to say i need to withdraw and given the line of lawyers that mr paralysing been through  content of those kinds of communications certainly around our other counsel may have chosen to proceed differently and i'm saying did he mean we need to be comfortable that he didn't cross the line you know and that's why i went back and looked at these illinois rules of professional conduct the model rules of professional conduct to see where that line is and the rules do not leave one with the impression that option one is to go bare your soul to court the rules emphasize accommodating these two very important well in your honor as i think the court has accurately pointed out duty of candor to the tribunals certainly is not in conflict with the duty to illinois rule but what i've what i'm pointing to so in part a three of the illinois rule a lawyer shall not knowingly offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false ok fine and then it goes on to say what should happen if the lawyer comes to know that it's false and it says the lawyers will take reasonable remedial measures including if necessary just closure to the tribe you know a lawyer may refuse to offer evidence other than the testimony  thing so the way that's worded so i say doesn't come across to me that going to tell the court about it is your st step you know your st step needs to be some other kind of reasonable remedial measure protect confidentiality but if in the final analysis you have to tell the court the rule allows you to do so i don't see that kind of balancing well your honor we don't know what was going through that we do know that he arrived at the decision that the best approach suppose instead story of this meeting he had just filed a motion to amend the motion to withdraw the guilty plea and didn't include mr meeker's testimony in support of that motion and said please limit your these lines let's assume that he did too much let's assume that he disclosed too many communications with the client that would cast the client in a negative light before the judge how should we think about that should we think about that in the two prong stricklin you know that was perhaps deficient performance perhaps that you know fell below fell below professional standards and disclosing that information but didn't prejudice or should we think about it and clear i mean that could have bigger consequences for mr paralysis because of course if he's really trying to raise an ineffective assistance of counsel claim at this stage that's it for this appeal it would not be available in some later reseeding that's correct are much mr i knew your time had expired so we will take this case under advisement