for preexisting clients that she had attained prior to the inception of the law firm she could that was all hers she could keep one hundred percent of the fees obtained from those clients so the value of the funds that were wrongfully taken should have been no testimony regarding this desisted duration of representation or specific amount of income generated for each of those created this thing clients so the income generated by day through the preexisting client during the period at issue was not accounting for deeds didn't testify that day probably had about five preexisting clients that she brought into the office with her but she didn't identify who they were how much with how much income was generated by that february and this is how much of it was generated from each of them all of those details were missing she just guessed based on her estimation of how long an average real estate case should take as she whether or not the transaction should have been because there wasn't evidence of gross sales and expenses and therefore no audience of what each partner spring from nash air would have been and without knowing what days on partial interest in the fines were  expenses had been paid paid at the end of the day tea's would have had an interest in what was left over and dave would have had an interest in what's left over so just because there's a corporate complainant in this case i don't know  isn't titled presumably that question should fall outside  will i think i mean i think the stick has a burn to show why if the state has a burden to show you i think the state does have a burden to show who was what out of this business i mean isn't  that well that's not that's not what i'm saying certainly consistent you know when asked in general terms if de was authorized to get anything out of the business through the pay checks she would say now but then when asked about specific transactions for example the state's exhibit forty five of the thirty five hundred dollars drop which took place in june two thousand and four she admitted that she probably other eyes doubts and you still have the issue of how much to you is entitle to through her project they could keep all of that money from that case unless it was a significant amount of who are still sitting really wasn't a lot of clearly out what was authorized for idiots take and what wasn't you know and i'm making this argument i telling had left with these these two former shareholders and all the expenses and all of the expenses that karen teats certainly was not entitled to be the sole that this year any of that whole rose stuff personally  i think you know t v would have been entitled to some portion that's on and asking her to pay back the full almost one hundred forty thousand dollars she is credibility issues the credibility determinations are not on the view of all and you know this case is in part about credibility standards and practices whether whether or not the court believed his testimony about w she was the one with all the obligations and expenses and still operating in place in the firm because she didn't damage actually from her from from those expenses and as i believe justice organs in indicat had self interest in quantum money in other words if one hundred dollars paid back to the corporation the bills were paid in fifty dollars remains why isn't there a twenty five dollars credit to the state as well as twenty five dollars way for it to be filtered through exceeded teases out of pocket cost because there's no question that the day would have been it been entitled to do some of that and they were they were supposed to split everything down the middle according to teaches testimony