they have not received any of their money back they have received judgments and they're both retired both because of injuries money still has a good excuse me money still has not been return with respect to the facts of the case from where we are how do we know this is true what you just told us i'm sorry to hear how do we know this is in the records no it's not in the record so you're making a joy argument here on based manage with respect to the situation these are very experienced lawyers as we all know there's alleged to be a mistake by these very experienced lawyers with the determination with respect to how many days there were to file the appeal to a clerk or non attorney i think that's a significant fact for you compound we have here a very clear so this isn't this isn't the case as in pioneer where it was somewhat close to us to what was meant by the words here you have a very clear rule so we all know about cuts against the argument if the lawyer delegates something to a subordinate and the subordinate because of lack of legal timing makes a mistake then you could say well you should look  when you say sponsibility when you say it's the lawyers problem i understand that to mean that the lawyer is liable what a malpractise action if i'm asked to negligence with damages regardless of whether the paralegal or the calendar clerk rather than a lawyer may be ever best person works for the order but represents a lot of the facts for i assume that that would be correct but i can't see it depends on the facts i don't understand and you already know i don't understand from the panel and given that i don't understand why this particular area of delegation is special and that's what i really want some explanation for it seems to me if anything it's more the sensible than say having a summer walker who is not yet admitted to the bar summarizing depositions for which many lawyers and large firms  poppy on let me ask you a question in a slightly different way is there any case that you're aware of where the more you're has delegated the legal question of how many days i have to appeal as contrast and with saying we have thirty days to appeal to a paralegal or secretarial  let's say the lawyer knows the deadline and let's say the deadline is thirty days and let's say the lawyer makes an error himself actually a very common one he just says well today is that  january twenty eighth so it's to february twentieth or today is more even more commonly february eighteenth so it's to march fifteenth and it just missed miscounts days because every has twenty eight days or has twenty nine days that year or he forgets about it thirty one day month and instead of counting it out with his finger it just adds a month to whatever days that i'm not making that accusation i don't i think this is a matter of what will in a situation like this and i think the farce i could find the only case that said you missed by a day you're ok if you mis you know we don't know the parties we didn't hear all of them we're just reviewing this judge for abuse of discretion doesn't the judge you're going your way in terms of well you know and but just you know went to the printer factors to tweak the record but have found that it was not excusable wouldn't that when we'd be able to affirm it as well because the judge had gone through all those factors seen in people that had just made some credibility think but i think that what you're asking us to do is as a matter of law say when this particular act occurs that that's it you know that there isn't a way that you that you don't look to all of those factors and you i think i've read most of the any argument in this case other thing than this was a clear rule there's no ambiguity about it there cannot be an excuse for misreading a clear  this one sentence and pioneer this is the supreme court so this congress plainly contemplated that the courts would be permitted where appropriate to accept late filings caused by inadvertence mistake or care as well as by intervening circumstances beyond the parties control now that we're carelessness is the one that it cracks my attention because there's just carelessness means negligence you're liable for malpractise if you make a careless mistake here clients detriment so i'm thinking congress here is saying even where there isn't any good excuse where it's just flat out care lest the record still has the power you use the truth to this day and age and it takes probably less than a minute to go on the internet or to use your computer or to walk down the hall to see this rule this reason we could argue it is because all of us can walk down the hall a few feet pick up that book and look at it in print don't understand what my question to you sir is there anything to my question to you sir if you could do that with a computer program to let's see normally be far more reliable really rely on and particularly an experienced trial lawyer too much more reliable than relying on  for malpractise i don't get why it matters that the lawyer is responsible for the paralegals ever because the rule is about not whether the lawyer is responsible at all here is whether the district court can give the lawyer every time a lawyer makes a mistake like this obviously floyd responsible lawyer may delegate but the lawyers also and every time i want to makes a mistake like this it is discouraging frustrating represents excusable neglect and i think there are two issues here one issue is can you ever delegate calendaring to a non lawyer and second what happens if united states or its officer or agency is a party in order to get to sixty days so i am unaware of any case in any jurisdiction including ours including the circuit it can you ever delegate calendar and when i think the answer is yes calendaring but that really think the real question can you t grey i'm not sure what would be used in this case you have a situation in which the calendaring personnel we're operating system that is widely used in other firms it is something where the calendar person here was hired from another large firm where he had performed successfully he was somebody who had performed first you had to hear somebody who had performed the same function that is reading the rule and entering the calendar number other firms successfully in this firm successfully it was  eleventh it was one where the lawyer got it right in and told the secretary to send out a notice or do something that would have been correct and the secretary  state's record below is pretty much limited in this particular individual the risk some stuff in the record of i think seventy seventy one seventy two that talks about the general calendaring system which you hire people who do this they're all experienced their purpose is a specialist simply to take the rules and look up the rule for the particular event and write is we want to be sure that people take the obligation to comply with the rules seriously and second we want to avoid the moral hazard of where somebody can after the fact come up with an with how do we deal with those two objectives now one way was the dissent in pioneer which was to say we have an absolute per se rule since pioneer have been doing is they've been struggling to find out well how do we balance and need to know that these people really took it seriously and it's not a fabricated excuse  one of the things that demonstrates that this is a case where you didn't have a excuse made up after the fact and that there was an effort to get it right didn't get it right this just comes down to it's an excuse equals effort i go i pick up the book you read and that's enough is that what we're you know what you are i don't think if that's the way we are bottom line it is the thing is is this was not an abus discretion because there was effort here and the effort was to pick up the rulebook i think it's not just that there was actually i think that it's the reasonableness of the effort to some extent i think it is the fact if you had a system the it had worked i think it is you had a system that it worked in other contexts i think it is a situation that you tried to go out and hire people who had the right experience to do this i think it's also and this is not something that has argument if if this person had made multiple mistakes in the past i think we would have had a less what argument if this had been simply a person that we had hired not supervised not trained and didn't have a record i think of those cases all the situations would have made it a less good case for us and that is the reason why i think this is committed to the sound discretion of the trial judge because the trial judge looks at all of these variety of your position that would be the same result if the lawyer had not delegated and it missed the deadline himself by reading  that issue whether merely delegating it was itself takes it outside was not considered by the district court i think that if you were to decide that was the critical issue that just any delegation form and the bankruptcy form of course that the bankruptcy form sixteen contained a dramatic ambiguity which could well have been confused by even persons experienced in bankruptcy constitute excusable neglect and under those even under those circumstances i would say that it's not excuse that you think the supreme court's use of that word usually was accidental rather than on purpose i mean lawyer has certain responsibilities himself to do those things themself and he can't delegate those to a non lawyer or say i was tired or i waited up till two in the morning we would have absolute chaos your time ha