with the brief time that i have i'm obviously not going to be able to get into a lot of the details of those appeals but i want to start briefly about its significance since the dollars alone would not probably show that but i hope that the panel here will take ee client lost in litigation then i would urge this panel to publish a decision to that effect as a warning or caution to the bankruptcy bar that this is a possibility because in fact there is no published decision at this time we're going to turn people down under people understand that whatever they charge they're going to pay whatever the result is well there is not the understanding we get what we ask for even if we lose the case flat out  must congress has indicated that they want to turn east for bankruptcy estates to be paid comparably to other attorneys and private and other private practice i'm not sure you know what's going on in pro practice these things well i took a got a real one the cost benefit analysis i better be a few adjustment with my client at the end of the no matter what my goal or you are i can't obviously preclude that in certain cases but i do think that there is a distinction here and there is in fact no pubs decision we're not attorney for a chapter seven the state has ever been penalized without some sort of a finding of conflict of interest rates are going it's hard to adopt your characterization of being penalized charged for it absolutely your honor i think that is necessary that was done in this case but i would also point out that that's not the attorney's sole parotid it the attorney response to his or her client the trustee and the trustee ultimately makes those decisions it's a little too fast for the district court to say well you can just resign at that point not in the chapter seven state context and particularly at certain points in the litigation so will track me through that how this works did you tell the trustee we've got a possible recovery here but it's going to cost more to get it then it's worth and do you want to go ahead anyway certainly that's not the case here and i hope your honour's don't believe that in this particular case as i have briefed the ultimate potential recovery was in fact much greater than the projected cost of litigation and had to give us some actual dollar figure right here start plugging numbers then well my belief is and i've i've i've brief this that all of the attorneys fees incurred by the trustee could be recovered think what you're saying is you didn't introduce them into bankruptcy in the lower court either but the trustee did submit his declaration stating that he supported litigation it was complex litigation and there has been no attention paid by the bankruptcy court or the district court to that fact i just wonder i mean i think i know what the state of the laws on attorney client privilege but i think when you're certain certain sums circumstances you context of these these motions because they're deciding on the papers basically and there was no reason to expect that that was necessary here pos i don't think that any tourney for christie should normally be put into that position of having to distinguish between what the bankruptcy attorneys presenting the application in a case that on its face objected really calls into question whether there was a proper cost benefit relationship here should just say well there's nothing i can do about that because they did it i have to assume that it was undertaken with proper legal advise and direction of the client of the trustee i'm saying it's improper for a bankruptcy court it to cut the fees of the bankruptcy trustees of what's the proper evidence or balance of factors if the bankruptcy court thinks a certain course of litigation was the advice because you said that you didn't occur to you or the trustee to put in anything of the fee is going to come out of everybody's hide it should come out of the one who basically force the decision that should be the trusting i think certainly if a bankruptcy court feels that there's an issue here and wants to attain further evidence as to who's litigation decision  was the bankruptcy court has that opportunity based on a record here there is no basis for saying bankruptcy attorney you are at fault bankruptcy trustee you are not exposed to cut but what i wanted to say was the real underlying issue here is not whose decision this was it was a reasonable decision and there is a california case that neither the bankruptcy court nor the district court has really paid much attention to this i scrapped versus houston case which says that there is no neutrality or set off in the state of california when you have one that is owed of by an individual member of a couple and another in debt owed to both members of that couple and neither court took that seriously obviously the bankruptcy court did not find that but it certainly goes to the the issue of whether there was a good reason for the litigation that was undertaken if this court case that  simply because there was no attention paid to the underlying reasonable most of the litigation based on that one california case the bankruptcy court said she was cutting the thieves in half that in fact she was cutting the  faces out there saying you can go back and revisit your interim feel ward where it's already been finalized where it's already been awarded fees already been granted they may not have all been paid where you don't have any finding of misconduct excessive billing etc and by the way the u trustee has referred several times to excessive billing and i want the panel hopefully to be clear that there is no issue of excessive billing here in the bankruptcy court never found excessive billing it's simply a question a reasonable amount of litigation what i what i read is a very careful decision by a bankruptcy care and it was going to seek relief in the whole thing would go away but is that necessarily wrong that is wrong or that's what happened that's absolutely wrong because what happened if in fact there is no offset right then the good morning i'm geoffrey lodge an attorney for the united states pressing united states trustee objected to mr look these compensation because he failed to use proper billing judgment the bankruptcy court agreed with the united states trustee and in round numbers awarded twenty four thousand of the thirty four thousand dollars he requested the amount at stake here today is less than ten thousand dollars the bankruptcy court agreed with the united states trustee and reached its conclusion by applying bankruptcy code section three thirty plywood these are the cases that are the current authority in the ninth circuit there are no material disputed fact essentially mr like he was hired by the bankruptcy of state to prosecute three adversary proceedings the fees in question relate only to the litigation with the internal revenue service the complaint against the internal revenue service to recover twenty eight thousand four hundred and fifty nine dollars the internal have been divided program between the internal revenue service and the state of california employment development department the i r s and the e t d both have claims that are equal in priority and nondestructive all in nature or can be modified except for the circumstances of mr look the just and i think the bankruptcy code itself section three thirteen why not a lot requires that in fact bankruptcy code section three thirty  can reduce that by the amount of interim that the service if you've already been paid then take that out what i'm asking is can you go back and say well you got twenty five thousand dollar interim clear word for services rendered to that point now at the end of the bankruptcy process for the final thought on the bankruptcy court decides gee you know he shouldn't have gotten as much as i gave him i'm going to take another the affirming this bankruptcy court decision will result in a payment to mr lucky and the amount of eight thousand four hundred fifteen dollars the court essentially awarded mr likely approximately twenty four without a reasonable notice analysis now the bankruptcy court goes back to what's at the total litigation and decides that some percentage of that interim clear word allocable to that litigation was too much and you said the only authority for  circuit authority that makes it clear so we don't confront this argument in the future that somehow by at the end of the process something that goes back in in effect readjust the interim three years or any clear divided probably rather and most of it would be given right back to the i r s the rest of it would go to the so the amount of stake here really is very small bankruptcy court found that mr like you should receive about ninety five hundred dollars in fees so he didn't go without any compensation in this case i would like to mention that the recovery on all three of the adversary proceedings prosecuted by mr elected netted a total of thirty three thousand dollars if he's awarded twenty four twenty five thousand dollars by the bankruptcy code that those fees position i think that the law is that in fact there is a reason most analysis that has to take place even at that point which means what that you can change the end of the award that if the bankruptcy court believes that there is going to be an issue remaining at the end of the case of the final fee application then the i mean where does this go when you're gonna tell us that the end of the award is somehow binding and once that's that's rendered that's it you can't look back at it after what it is i want to hear you saying absent discouragement standards which were not made over the case that counsel cited for the proposition that's not true i don't think holds that but it really eventually says interim feel words are not final determinations and it makes it pretty clear at least the fifth circuit doesn't eventually and mansfield tire and rubber another bankruptcy case in the doesn't apply to in our field words they don't provide very much relief if in fact they're going to be forfeited later on via subs well there you go again i mean it's not forfeited i mean you keep trying to put labels on things sometimes penalize something is forfeit interest fraud the whole med net approach is not sufficient to incorporate that i don't have any problems with the men that approach but i don't think the midnight approach here leads us to saying yes you can revisit an interim feat of war under these circumstances