derivative and individual right that it does say you're denying that its derivatives now i'm not denying his derivative that but he has standing because he has personal damages as a result of the the cause of action and there was a claim that he had against lawyers representing him personally in the arbitration the corporation wasn't even a party to the arbitration below and while that might be a factual argument that could be raised in terms of evidence he's making a claim that he was personally represented by these attorney including the one damages relating to the tax issues that arose from the company that he acquired personal liability for and personal risk for because of the employment taxes that were paid by the firm and in this case and but let me let me explain and i've done for better or worse legal malpractise work before and this is kind of a touchy area because you have both the corporation and you have the individual things came out of it that were personal to mr collins there's no question about that and things could be arguably related to the corporation he brought a claim in his personal capacity it was lawyers heep he hired and paid for his personal capacity and that's who the malpractise claim is against and what occurred and then this is kind of will segue them i do these actions in connecticut also where we have a much looser test i think in terms of proximate cause we we satisfy that test here and i think we do because in this case the court kind of went off in a direction based on this issue that the arbitration arbitrator found fraud among all the partners in the corporation that's what we're suing in terms of the malpractise in terms of his peter collins what his claim is is that because of the believe the testimony was less clear than that there were different questions that led him in different directions i think he testified poorly at the arbitration and i think you can equally find things in this ransford in the arbitration are going to be under the opportunist concluded that he was in on it looters at least some support for that finding well there is support for that yeah i mean let's maybe we put it in the in the case of a court side case that there is there is any evidence that might support that there might be evidence that supports an a contrary finding also the malpractise that we're complaining about is that part of the case wasn't handled correctly so if you take the defendant's arguments you could never bring bad result in litigation because that's raised judicata client makes admissions that are fatal to claim it's kind of hard to say that the lawyer is fault for letting him make those admissions under oath right and we're not saying that testimony concerning whether or not the parties knew that there were cash transactions taking place just in money from mr collar mr collins and from the other parties was it your contention that the lawyers should have prevented him from saying that and that was malpractise no the lawyer should have prepared him better so he understood what he was answering questions to and how he was answering them and i'll put it to you this way i mean you know it's funny as a peasant litigator i'm a little gator that for some reason got an element tax i think i've gotten well beyond that but i understand enough that when you're in a situation about how closely held corporation handles its finances most of the time the individual partners don't quite understand the concept of what they're doing what their knowledge was mr collins testify truthfully when he said that he in tax avoidance i don't believe that mr collins lied anywhere during the arbitration he tried the answer to questions to the best of his ability and one of the so what could the lawyers have done differently to prevent testimony the truthful testimony from coming out well your honour's in terms of how testimony comes out when testing this is the point i made a moment ago about tax law and how it applies it's very easy to say something and not understand what you're meaning within the context of what the tax law permits or doesn't permit and in terms of understanding for example that maybe your partners are taking cash french transactions and his cash transactions  transactions are perfectly legal as long as they're reported correctly you know and that's the that's the mess that folks in closely held businesses get into an argument that could have been made to the arbitrators or in appealing the arbitration right arbitrators but the argument wasn't made to the arbitrators and that's why the arbitration is the key to the malpractise case had it been handled properly that could have been dealt with the way that it was and mr collins withdrew the appeal of the appropriately analyze a tax which is right that's correct what you didn't alleged what they would have found i mean that's what to me makes is different from ruben's and some of the other cases and that's where that's where the proximate cause issue comes in effect because most of these not most malpractise cases will say you know the lawyer had done x the lawyer would have discovered why in ruben's is said if they had hired an appropriate expert they would have discovered that it was a fault there was a forensic accountant would have discovered from the tax returns i believe there's an allegation in the complaint that talks about the fact that after the fact a forensic accountant did look at the at the documents he did not reach a conclusion on that  point but there was testimony from so that's that i have i mean it's like a doctor saying i can't i can't reach a conclusion whether the person did or didn't have cancer and so i have a hard time then you then you see yourself i have a hard time understanding if this is misdiagnosis case you know a medical malpractise they're not a hard time understanding if this is a breach of contract and so i have a hard time so did the lawyer blow a breach of contract claim you have to connect the lawyers negligence to the plainest injury and that's the problem here there's no branch i think the complaint alleges that bridge but what is that it does and what is it what is it that the forensic accountant would have said to mr collins mr college they stole from  stole money from you that's what you're alleging he would have known but you didn't know much that's what you're saying they would have discovered but there's nothing in the complaint that alleges that what we do will let it lead your honour's there's a discussion in the complaint concerning and daniel notice for my clients in particular there is a timing problem with the allegations that are made assuming that there's any  them in the st place but for my clients in particular they left the representation of mr collins on november th of two thousand and thirteen the arbitration itself did not happen until some four months later and the knowledge that ready and current had gone off to the i arrest and put together amended tax return that was not even known to the parties to collins and rinds until november st so there were only thirteen days where the felder attorneys even knew that there was any issues specifically get into that issue i'm pointing that out as something peculiar a little bit different for my clients which i pointed out in my brief which is that you know to make that connection to proximate cause you've got to say that someone did something but for what they did or did not do cause you some sort of damage my client's many issue with respect to standing are you concerned about the you know we raise that in our brief we also raised it below mr ryan's also brought action in state court  against my clients and we argued there same issues a malpractise claim all the same issues were argued sure would decide that case so between us making our argument and judge sure would decide in the issue we did argue standing there judge sherwood felt that because there were some arguments made by my clients that they were individual as well as to rid of claims that there was standing in that particular complaint is that collins and raines brought a that is what this case is about which is whether or not there is a connection between what my clients did and whether or not there are any damages and again we say that there are not any connections in this particular case it was the finding of the court i mean the arbitration panel that the issue there was as you pointed out the tax issues the tax issues were not anything that my clients even knew enough to deal with some of the issues they claim that the file their clients my fellow clients were responsible for had to do with things that happened well before anyone even knew about that issue for example they claim that there was an appropriate selection of the arbitrators you know again all of the various issues that they claim we had something to do with were all before the arbitration that actually happened if you look at the reply papers and if you look at the argument that was made today really what they're complaining about is what happened at the arbitration and my clients did not represent mr client at the arbitration thank you very much thank you opportunities at this stage to demonstrate proximate cause they filed a complaint they filed an amended complaint they filed a motion for reconsideration of the file the instant appeal and your honour's the issue exactly on the head in none of those papers have they ever explained how my client's conduct proximately cause their damages in particular focused on these amended tax returns however there were no allegations as to what in the amended tax returns would have changed the ultimate result of the arbitration the arbitrators found the plaintiffs committed tax fraud and based upon that tax fraud they found that none of the shareholders had acted in bad faith with respect to each other but rather with interest with respect to the corporation because of that there are no damages to plaintive the only damages were to the corporation and so based on that the arbitrator found that the that there were no as i said there were no damages to the corporation put simply based on that finding there could be no finding that my client committed malpractise it was plain to own misconduct not my client's conduct the cause that caused the result that he does not like and he's now gone on a long standing campaign to attack this result that he did not like that was based on his own testimony and his pointed fingers at just about everybody including all of his prior lawyers to try to get out of this ruling that is not valid grounds for legal malpractise action that's a client who's unhappy with the result based on his own malfeasance and going ahead and attacking everybody but himself value of the company and the other is between them to ninety five percent would that be a basis for an individual claim against the other malfeasant partners well that was that was found in this instance there's a direct quote from the arbitrator which said that each of the parties were acting not in bad faith towards each other but towards the corporation so i don't think that that's a question that needs to be addressed here because that's frankly not what the arbitrator found his cl proportionally of income tax that he never appreciated well in terms of that income tax issue that frankly is not something that would have been decided in the underlying arbitration or in this case that's a tax issue but what the complaint fails to out these these issues with the tax return would have altered the arbitration panel's conclusions is just a false one he's pointing to his pointing at these tax returns reviewing them with a fine tooth comb and finding issues that he believes that the tax returns had however if acknowledges existed it refers to the the use of cash in envelopes to pay off employers and independent contractors it doesn't refer or very very briefly refers to the tax returns a tax return simply put were not the cause thank you let me try to answer the question we started with in the beginning for st of all let me preface it is this it's not a summary judgment motion and some of the arguments i hear from the defense are arguing the case and they may be wonderful arguments in the case but we're dealing only with the motion to dismiss and whether or not there is enough of us men assent of a case that it should survive a motion to dismiss if you look at my complaint and i gave you the wrong pages if you go to page my copies also but at any rate if you look at paragraph fifty two in the context of whether we have a complaint under which we can prove facts which would allow us to prevail in a case where paragraph fifty two dollars says is that they didn't get  expert they didn't review the tax returns and here are the things they would have found you're right it doesn't say mr jones is going to testify to this but in terms of the allegations we allege specific inaccuracy is that would have been discovered had the financial expert been retained none of those inaccuracy would nullify the fact that your client admitted to using improperly using the company's  where the arbitrator says that the point of the arbitration is were those tax returns accurate or not accurate as they were amended we took the position that they were not and the the attorneys never retained or utilize expert testimony to determine whether they're accurate these issues that we've raised would have changed the outcome of the case because it would have disproven the issue of fraud so one there were financial there were financial findings based on those tax returns that were left unchallenged which would have changed things your honor and i here's the thing i can't tell you as i stand here whether it would change it by ninety five percent fifty percent or one hundred percent but it wouldn't change the findings and the way you prove that in a malpractise case is with expert testimony what were your client's injuries now he says there was eight hundred thousand dollars i was a shareholder salary shift pay commissions that were incorrectly reported as distributions and passed through the corporation to shareholders that would have created a tax result which would have  resulting in iran is tax liable that's his injury right in addition if you go to the next page and go to ready had taxable wages actually paid to himself which was shown as paid to other shareholders so there was also money that went to ready that was reported as going to the other shareholders and that would throw off the distributions from the company the k one showed monies received by other shareholders of gaslight beyond those equal to distributions by checks there were there was money missing there was money that was not reported that was showed up on a k one that was not reported to the issues of the arbitrators was was well the issue dealt with with the fraud that was a claim against ready and the other partner ready ready and the other party there were cash payments what he asked his lawyers to do and what became the issue is that amended return the amended returns became the now official report of the income and distributions of this company the law firm did not challenge that and those pointed the finger at all the partners including collins collins could have defended against that with the use of an appropriate expert to restructure the i do understand that the  report of it came up suddenly but you know it was during the the arbitration had begun then they had decided to voluntarily file those returns i think thank you thank you wilmer serv