and whether or not we would refuse ourselves or transferred in it were that not the case really isn't the issue in this circumstance and so we're going to respectfully deny the motion to transfer so mr west meister once you story for two reasons first one was that she concluded that mr hoffman was not the attorney representing act had not been complied with and the only issue really that was covered by the crowd court was whether or not there was an effective leader in this case she someone that's represented by an attorney that you couldn't comply with the levy is it is that what your art you say it is my position is that he did perfect under the wing and as everybody judges opinion reason not to consider the other claims that mr hoffman yeah but the contract itself doesn't name mr harkness in the in the agreement when we can look at the first page says th hired and we do have to we have to reach that question at some point whether mr potman has a right to pursue his other claims it is something you argue in your second issue and that is that the court used your discretion but the cases that you know we have been referred to us by hope that you specifically show the situation where that contract was entered into between the client was entered into between the client and a relationship even if we accept what you're saying is true that there was a joint venture relationship between mr hoffman and when misess randolph wetherspoon that was it doesn't i think part of the problem is that there are a number of remedies that are being sought for the same perceived problem and that all that was considered by the trial judge was one of them and what i view this colloquy as trying to establish is simply the ability of the statutory we act which has to be strictly construed to apply these sets of circumstances that is really all we've discussed this thus far and when we go back the contract we go back to the potential breach of contract claim or violation of good faith as joint ventures things that nature that's a different issue with this one ye just the does the ruling that you didn't comply with the lien act let's say for the reason that brant thompson was mr white does that prevent you from but another reason other reason i mention that right is not to disparage the reason i mention that's for a very very important point and i want to make sure that's clear on the record the reason for that is a belief that those cases were his now in this case mrs thomson was still alive in may of two thousand and eight when he left presumably just like the other clients he contacted her if he truly believed it  client to take the case with her she did not leave she stayed with the firm let me ask you this you argue in your brief that all that he did  agent of the front read that page three of your contract refers to him as a referring lawyer and gives him a at least in the language of this contract i'm entitled to a percentage of the feet and had your view of news terms and conditions of employment or the manner in which you brought the case to your firm changed from the time you signed this document to the time you're serving the current position it depends your honor on when and if he was going to be leaving the firm and that's what those contract that what that what that referral agreement contemplates if there is another attorney who is responsible on a case under one point five and i should say your honor that that referral agreement is under will to dash one of seven we have even been using those those forms one of the things i raised in my brief was that the inability  to contract with clients only i had the authority to contract with any client three but you didn't assert the position at the time he was the case here but well you brought it in while i was paying you and therefore you were an agent of this firm and therefore you were not considered to be a referring lawyer and therefore i will not agree to consider you are referring were or pay when the percentage of the fees that position was not tak i understand that and i understand that but she hasn't reached that that ruling yet nonetheless you rely on your interpretation of the terms and conditions of mr hoffman's employment in your brief and my question was directed that it seems to be inconsistent with the position it's taken in this written document on page three i can see how you can see that your honor but again that has not are yours your firm and then mr hoffman and that he's referring to turning it does state that you know but again there are defenses to that and that had not been going into by judge durkin roy now i would add that the case that the court address with respect to the other matters and consolidating all these issues which could have been done at one time in front of a dirty war all the appellant had to do was simply a asked the court to consolidate all these matters of motion there was no such matter before the court whatsoever and could i ask you this be the record doesn't contain an actual counter claim of any act yes it was simply a response to your petition for th correct and he could have done so he could have filed a counterclaim he could have asserted all those matters he could have asked the court to consolidate anything that he wanted to that he was raising he never did and that's why the court said look the only thing that's in front of me is this and this is the in any way shape or form in construing the lien acts trickly as it should have been construed in this particular setting well if if we are to include do you agree that the reviews hard and wouldn't mr hoffman in a case of legal negligence be subject to suit just as well as you individually or the farm you know your honor he would not and that's that's a very very important point in a joint venture because the individual that was hired was my warfront to represent miss thompson and i have  the tourney was an employee of the from the act or mission of that employee is on my shoulders because the client hired salander mannequin associates not craig hoffman and that's a very very important point so if there was a joint venture unlike the other cases such as the thompson in ray johnson and the car smart case the client has two attorneys that he or she had hired in those cases and in each of those cases each of those attorneys would have been responsible for any act or mission of the other attorney not in this case so you have a situation where you page three not only refers to mr hoffman as the referring attorney but also states correctly state of the law that he  to participate in the representation of the client and to contribute legal work again you're right he then somehow be immune from any errors or omissions if he made in the representation if happened to make that immunity in what i don't know in what sense you're referring to in terms of liability issues it would all fall on sound american associates who hires him who pays malpractise insurance he would have nothing to pay that particular he be able to be sued for post separation now because there is no contract with him see the contract is what is what is binding on us as attorneys if there is a contract as the as the case law we were both in front of the judges no question about that or honor because i remember that hearing with a judge pacifically asked us each a variety of questions and she was taking down notes as a reporter for her as officers of the court yes we were under oath