various markets for the past twenty years high risk probably in the seven figurin information certainly in the context of the lawyer client confidentiality the question is whether this information was given to the lawyer with the expectation that it would be kept confidential in order to enable the lawyer to do the l with which which aspect of the information you put on troubling the characterization that it was high risk that not so much broader i'm particularly focusing on the the general  i mean there are people out there you know and in fact that the the fair credit reporting act is based in part on the notion that there are a lot of people out there who don't like others to know what they're worth it gives rise to all sorts of all sorts of risks and i think that's exactly why you know we have a duty of confidentiality that between a stockbroker and could to the s t r a claims and what i'd like to do is first spend just a minute talking about the findings that i think a jury could arrive at based on what's in the record and examined there and what the reasons or for some other client well when you say you know you just referred vaguely to the instructions he received what instruction exactly was given by stoney and pretty else he was told to locate the chandlers a and and and he said that in a way that made it clear that he knew that that could be done only for certain purposes and he said i had one of these purposes i think that it's ok for you to obtain this information  because you've just told me that you think that you might be transferring assets so in the end we have we have someone saying i'm the thing that i am asking you to do is permitted is something that you were permitted to do that was very clearly written between the lines but more importantly there is not a test that i'm aware of or actually with already that turns exclusively level not not just the parents or actual authority and this is anything it's not just the explicit instructions of the principal or the self the principal so to speak but any anything that reasonably follows from that  and those cases in turn were based on and this court cited an old california case excuse me involving out somebody had purposefully driven his truck into somebody else and the context in which th we'd like to proceed with the argument in any event because it's the case against investigators is its status is not important to us holding a nonprofit profit foundation in the business of supporting environmental causes liable for an act that's done by a twice removed independent contractor gives no protections to the public it does not affect what credit reporting agencies do or what users of credit reports do since as you so cannot change its ways and cannot as the statute says establish reasonable procedures concerning access to access to credit information because as you know never had access to credit information and then never had any ability to control the activities of life state private investigators in the operation of their business no case has yet decided the issues before you today no case as president who who reporting act was to relate people who were in the business the credit reporting agencies and all those people who use that information all of the cases to date and only applied vicarious liability to people who honor in order to the plaintiff has alleged in their pleading that they were a user but they have not produced any proof in their summary judgment opposition they have not come up with any evidence that the at the corporation had a meeting wherein it specifically authorized very specifically an asset check not a credit report but an assets check only if you're going to extend this liability this statute to this degree where but he never employed him to get a credit report now and mr stone each going to reports for a year or he didn't even know he had them your honor at first he had talked with john porter you have to remember that we have another entity here that's not been discussed besides alan pruitt alan truth with a licensed investigator with no access to credit reports and alan pruitt is the man that as you so through johnstone it agreed to pay to get it asked that report now ellen prove it went and went into this other man's computer system to extract a credit report which ellen crude had no authority to get and it's only john that this entire statutory scheme was intended to reach it was intended to reach the man who has the capacity to stop this kind of behavior as you so has no capacity to control if i can continue the investigators are not in this case neither the alan nor john porter they're not here why aren't they here that's a good question your honor this is the attempt specifically came to the board of as you so and said i would like to get an ask the track to determine if mr chandler and mr chandler have the assets to support the judgment for those which might be in the several millions and that was a c sixteen eighty one four and of course as confirmed in the code and many other the stations as well the statement of purpose is to require a consumer reporting agencies to adopt reasonable procedures to regulate the collection and disbursement of credit information and that sixty one now the c r a refers to a variety of terms within the party and unfortunately it does not define all of them in fact it doesn't define most of them but it does refer to credit reporting agencies users who are presumably regular industry users of credit reports and users and subscribers and prospective users and third party but it does not impose use of any person i think it has a very limited view one must focus upon the phrase failing to comply with any requirement imposed under this act that phrase just begs the question of what is prohibited and who is prohibited and if one looks at the specific in foresman provisions of the f c r a we see that those requirements are not imposed the point any person they are imposed upon consumer reporting agencies sixteen eighty one b and this is one of the primary enforcement provisions any consumer reporting agency make furnish a consumer report under the following circumstances and no other doesn't make reference to users it prohibits credit reporting agencies from disseminating this information sixteen eighty one scene refers to no consumer reporting agency may make any consumer report concerning any of the following items again regulating c r a's there is a provision under sixteen any one d or investigative consumer reports which merely used the phrase compliance procedures under sixteen eighty one eat every consumer reporting agency shall maintain reasonable procedures to limit the disburse of the furnishing of credit reports sixty one and on and on we see those other provisions referred to in the phrase that in failing to comply with any requirement imposes the requirements not on the general public but on the consumer reporting agencies and in rare it's described as the duties of users are taking adverse action on the basis of the information contained in credit reports that's not the facts here this refers to lenders who either deny credit or  interest rate on the basis of the credit reports and nothing was done in this case on the basis of any credit report mr astonished never asked for it didn't know we had it he was told by someone with higher more experience tha it wasn't a credit report that in fact it was just a credit header and so he should be forgiven for relying upon that person's information after all that person is the expert in this just vanish it never has been a credit report before and these and mr done it was previously told by mr pruitt i'm going to send you a bunch of reports but unfortunately there's nothing in there i'm sorry i couldn't be of help to you when understandably under the circumstances in recognizing that mr stonor just just investigating hundred dollars there was no reference in the bill to credit  third party mr who it was not hired as a representative he was hired as an investigator he was not hired to negotiate anything with any third party and therefore the agency rules don't generally  those who have denied credit or imposed higher charges upon consumers the d geonic kicks and those who were in the ordinary course of business request and receive credit reports that is the northrop case those industry vicarious liability should attach only where there was some misconduct on the part of the accused and here we see that there is no evidence of any misconduct by a the some of the labor cases or cases where this collective bargaining agreement says don't do this but of course they've allowed the stewards or agents of the are you going to do it anyway but in this case is an important public policy that ought to be enforced and that's the policy that there ought not to be needless litigation an attorney should be allowed to investigate a case to determine whether it's going to be collectable or whether it's going to be meritorious and if it's not either then the attorney is not going to prosecute it this reduces the caseload upon the public it reduces the fees upon the clients it's to everybody's benefit there is no benefit to applies to persons other than those who maintain subscriptions with credit reporting agencies it will not be making new law congress made that move new law in one nine hundred ninety six when it amended the statute extensively among other things congress adopted what is nasa section sixteen eighty one b which provides a person shall not use or obtain a credit report for any purpose unless section sixteen eighty one and and zero which provide the mechanisms for negligence and willful violation of the statute it's clear that the statute now applies much more broadly than it did before nine hundred ninety six and  g the last thought with which i would like to leave the court is is that is the idea that expressed in this court's even see cases going very far back and that's you know on who should the should the burden fall should fall on the principle for whose benefit the agent was working or should it fall on the some innocent bystander like in this case mr and mrs chance certainly if anyone was in a position to prevent the authorized dissemination of their credit reports