misrepresentation is a question of the existence of the attorney client privilege do you concede that at least as to the eyrie duty and them our practice claims that that separate questions and then we'll go back to the basis for your contesting the conclusion that there was no attorney client relationship from our papers there is a truly quiet relationship established with the u s attorneys in september of two thousand and eight which were just two weeks after the self imposed and extended deadline on that document indicates september twenty three and there were no communications whatsoever prior to that time between the attorneys and ms try or the other business partner in th and minimal claim that i could see where that might support it or if you had evidence that he would have taken some other job that was available to him but abs establish harm from the fact that he says i continued working for them thinking i was an owner because he testified in your honor that he would have taken another job you are correct there is not evidence that he was offered a piece of paper saying come least up until the time period where the there is some failure by plaintiffs to sign the corporate amended complaint papers that  corporation or set up anything else and a lawyer then sets it up for all of them and doesn't affirmatively disclose that it's not representing one of them individually i think those are saddam gone but the person can reasonably think the voters representing th there needs to be more beyond that if you look at the entire context of the entire history of what occurred and the back and forth and who is paying that bales who was communicating with whom there is no evidence of a surprise ever communicated amended operating agreement by the data line and failure to do so will mean that you will cease to be and i'm her she told the mountain surprised it made it to that he conceded that he understood that he understood that he knew that he had to execute the amended operating agreement issue because he so the judge thought it was not necessary to retrieve his suit your argument that it is not necessary to breach the issue  that he failed to sign the amended operate that's the that's the only issue that i see in this case that he did not sign off on and he has two theories originally his theory was she should have she should have done more to make sure that he did got that he signed off on it understand the recognizes that today in order for him to continue to be a member he needed to sign it and for whatever reason he didn't care he continued on for three and a half year as he did ask anybody about the man operating agreement he september th he was no longer a member at least arguably he wasn't and the only time he raises it is when their story of the issues came up between his mistress or so his after the fact contention now that he would have done something differently it's completely unsupported by the matter because he knew on september th forward that he was not a member of it he hadn't signed that operating agreement so now after the fact it's very convenient for him to come back and say i would have done something differently but more importantly there is no evidence in the record that this business made any money there were no profits to be added the only evidence in the record came from mistry earth who said because this was not profitable mr quixano put no money whatsoever into that spends less and although he says that he didn't draw salary he did bring in his personal point training clients and he did take money from those clients to use this business the gym as a business to continue to train his own clients so it's not as though he gave up sat on a salary for all that time and during that entire time he knew he had not signed about agreement which he knew full well the implications of that so it's not a situation where she didn't explain to these individuals what their rights were or what the contract was or she misrepresented it or she was a you know somehow rock something out with regard to one she stopped them all down said here is what you need to do and he fully understood it and he didn't do it and there's absolutely no evidence that there was any harm that has come from him the current situation he could raise these issues back in september of two thousand and eight or two thousand miners at any point in time he could have sa thank you thank you was presented during the litigation prior to summary judgment but the central issue here is whether the central factual determination was or that it was stronger it really cited there's absolutely no evidence contradicting that and i know you think it's important but i'm having trouble seeing why that's important if your client knew there was sick deadline he had been told he lets it deadline code by document had been given to your client your client would then have signed the agreement because that is that the idea is in the sale of that does he say that