want to make and given that this is a court of the gulf holds and interpret so i think it's appropriate to start with who i think is the fundamental legal question in this case and that is what are the story doesn't attorney need in order to settle a case on behalf of his client i want to discuss that first and then second i want to go to what actually occurred at the settlement conference and issue here and the evidence that was presented in the actual petition so that if you look at it the leading cases analysis gets a lot more complicated when we talk about what is express authority mean in the context of an attorney client relationship because certainly an attorney client relationship gives rise to legal duties that this court's well aware of and then on the other side of that or kind of kinda that the attorney client relationship is known as one of an agency relationship and i think this is where the analysis gets a lot more complicated when you talk about the attorney client relationship in the context of also an agency circuit court respectfully what was in error here is that they they saw mr alexander as an agent of missing and they made findings that he had apparently authority to settle on behalf spokesperson for the board that's correct so that was the the glitch in your opinion that it's a spokesperson for the board this not the individual representation that's right and that it goes to the crux of mr alexander's representation he was there only half of the board and that's clear from his affidavit i don't think the circuit court disputes he was there on behalf of the board with the search of course as well when he was there he needed to hear that he could also settle this is stang's claims individual so as well and then it's you know the attorney's decision as to whether or not based on what he's been told from mr alexander he thinks it's appropriate to report him under him and in this case based on what we've discussed with mr alexander he's put in a sworn statement that in fact you know he did not have authority to represent her individually he never made any representations to that effect so that's the reason the business from our perspective years have been reported to the d c from our side but going back to whether or not have the fact that there was no ference file we have a fact that mrs stang was not individually a party to the litigation for which the settlement conference was held and then we have the testimony of one stand whereby she she said show with respect to the proceedings as to what opportunity she had an obligation she had to get representation in that lawsuit and she wasn't appearing day mr alexander came on the substitute counsel for the temp right so she was still a party to the litigation that at that point in time right and you know who but we all know that the rules provide that then the court would defend a person without representation twenty some days to get a new attorney and appear in court what actually happened here she never did get your representation she was dismissed from  thing the gap in the record doesn't fall on the shoulders of you that believe it's on your shoulders to demonstrate that there was no there's no question in fact here he was clearly not r on behalf of the temple ok the only in the first instance that he spoke and if you look at the actual transcripts you know if you look at the actual transcript never does he speak on the record on her behalf he's very clear that he represents only the continue to be the case individually were she continued to prerecord we don't even know that she didn't come here and she was not there for the summer conference on the other dates do we even know whether or not she attended she attended as a observer she durbin a settlement in principle but there has been no terms put off the record there have been no discussions of any specifics that's why when the settlement agreement was sent over to mr alexander in the main justice i agree there's no  thing so he thought there may have been some of the state between he had this thing as to who he represented because he thought he still represented her well i think mr alexander made a missed mistake here and that's part of the problem but i just i think you're right you know if you have an issue here and maybe something that's appropriate to really flesh this out we didn't request it because that time we saw the affidavits as being the only evidence that there was no express should that be just right after everybody identifies himself say ok i have before me twenty causes of action twenty counts but it would be who is going to settle what here and i'll be happy is that what raised during the appellate argument are interesting to say the least i think the ones takeaway the court should have from this is of this isn't it that this was a situation where this was a settlement conference at someone's office he can put it in writing he can scream it at the top of sitting on a table of conference i have authority to settle this but it doesn't no matter how many times he says it it doesn't make it so is that the and a different circuit right and not only that but in a different country there was actually another case and that's up that's a whole other issue and the whole point of the exercise of the settlement conference was to suck all the things together because none of the parties want anything to do with any more  should be able to rely on the representations of the counsel before them and i think it's an obligation of the parties who were before the court to know all of the attorneys are doing there are you saying then that attorney alexander settlement conference setting when you combine it with a sneer all the statements that were made of the email exchange there's a lot of different little facts that piled up to show the express authority that alexander had at the settlement conference now i think the question was down to you which arguments that she could possibly may be a lot of effect but he did make a decision that there was a forceful settlement so i say i don't want to speak for joshi but i think in his mind his position was i'm going i'm going to allow you to intervene for the purpose of but again he participated directly in the settlement conference itself and so that's why he he went through all of the reasoning but he did so to foil why he thought the affidavit was false you buy please give you a record one of the cases that you the attorney was doing and any of that attorney represents me to say geez you know that case i got dismissed out of i better follow that make sure nobody is compromising my or my rights that oh by the way you're pending in a different county where is that policy that we're going to say that he used to be a client or a needy client that you have that burden to follow these cases and know who's representing what about you i think it's kind of the same trick bag respectfully policy question i ask counsel afic on a subject the basis for this case made from that attorney that were specifically directed toward that individual that should overcome any affidavits that are submitted after the fact because i'm told otherwise we would rather the s she was what was dismissed or what she represented as far as the record shows i don't believe anybody substituted the parents for her to visually i don't call it as i sit here i don't recall she followed pro receive moral express authority i think that certainly can occur doesn't have to be in writing and think that's any question but what can't be answered is just because a lawyer comes into a settlement conference says hey i've got authority to sell for client a million c and i'm ready to sell and he that were submitted it's something that should have asked for by you kelly and i'm not saying that they necessarily this waived on either side but thinking about anything maybe it was the rid of it just vacate was based upon your the only other point that i want to make justice is it's interesting after the settlement was reached you pointed out this train today came in pretty much right away in the petitioning me and he attempted to speak at one of the hearings which i think we cited and