witnesses called against their clients and only one of them got to object during the cross examination of questioning by police counsel and then the second issue of like you addressed briefly is how the conduct of counsel but please counsel during the course of the trial conduct counsel chose to bring her in the case and chose to keep her in the days of the trial to see if he got a large verdict that could then be enforced also against dr who and yet despite her personal financial exposure and the consequences for an alone just to find the nine one party or the other for the right to the full participation of an attorney of their choosing i just tried a case out in the third district three weeks ago where we had the same situation and that wasn't the remedy that was provided by the court i  doctor in the corporation and the both have separate attorneys and both attorneys should be allowed to present their arguments there are ways to do that efficiently without repeating your arguments of one another but you don't just not have one party or the other the buy can present their case to know that the right to counsel is specifically designed to say we don't know how you might present your evidence but you have the right never setting to make the strategic call and you don't have to rely on somebody else's attorney to do that for you  that's done the way a question is phrased is very important which is why you choose counsel why you why certain trial counsel are chosen over others because of their ability to ask a question in a certain way and it may very same topic in basing information they're attempting to elicit but from their number of reasons that are related to insurance proceeds related to the first personal financial risk of the doctor or the doctors and the relationship with the group that that all came into play than used up my time of the know i concur with mr larson's thoughts on that i would like to speak to your question of justice kirby the one definitive area in which the prejudiced was real was in the opening and the closing and also the objections on the rights to object by judge jones ruling at the trial court the non speaking attorney only one attorney was allowed to speak as ruling i was supposed to be making objections on behalf of a doctor who droughty that i think is a concrete and material prejudice to the parties and i would reiterate the idea that the  prejudicial and to expect him or expect me to remain side and at the end now damp the opportunity to sort of fit the facts into you know my own perception to the jury when they significant legally aligned i mean as a employer employee but as much noise and some other interests are not identical the corporation has a different interest in terms of protecting its assets and without going into attorney client communications are going to be right yes but it is a different manner in which a party would approach a trial dependent on what its and the motivation was whether your goal is to work the case over towards a settlement posture whether your goal those you were able to work on that separately right that is true in the fact the matter is that these cases have sort of an organic life of their own and i think as you know perceptions of the parties at the beginning you know and so the first witness or one of the first witnesses came up and it was sort of the first situation of i'm the non speaking attorney and i cited to it in my brief where the end of the examination i said on the record i just want the record reflect i wasn't able to make internally in conflict you cannot have two diametrically opposed motions and say that one creates questions of fact and the other does not it makes no sense and the underlying question explore and to determine if it was caused by some act of negligence the claim was filed more than two years after the january twenty ninth two thousand and nine da of cancer was made and i would propose to the court that the definitive diagnosis of cancer does not usurp the the suspicion or knowledge of a malignancy that was communicated on the twenty ninth of knew back in january that's the fact and that's why the court should have granted the motion for summary judgment in the first place should have granted the motion for directed verdict and at the very least  both those motions should have denied the plaintiff motion to even raise a very legitimate affirmative defense and take that out of the jury's consideration of the case so that they believe court ruled on in the last year or two and it's it in that case one of the rationales that the plaintiff used for trying to file more than two years after the original  injury was he said well it wasn't until a longer time after that that an attorney or a doctor told me that some negligence had occurred it wasn't until two years after or wasn't told more than two years clear indication that maybe it's time to start looking into this thing and then the moon base and the plaintiff's attorney and waited a significant amount of time before he even saw the records or submitted on to an expert but the same rationale occurs or it is evident they are in this court in its opinion in the moon case cited to the supreme court words that if if being told flat out that negligence occurred was the trigger moment every days would be verdict should be not just reversed but i think it should be directed to return to the trial court with instructions to enter a directed verdict on the motion for earth and drop an order on the motion for the  at the questions were asked they were there they were the attorneys for to see if there was something else sometimes additional questions sure they didn't in the analogy i would use and that is why is mr magoo here rather than his associate charlie because you know the public defender but people choose their words because of the specific abilities and styles of those murders for that case and how they present in question it may be you can say after the trial which end there are myriad of things to be able to name one specific thing is nearly impossible it's like trying to prove a negative that it didn't affect things because essentially everything was covered the point being that this concept of per se cond you don't go behind what happen just by the very nature ruling this way as per se improper i believe so and that's that's where you're arguing right but it isn't that or is it  that in this case given the circumstances there was a deprivation of them right having your dream choosey because we were there not able to go into the into this line of questioning we weren't able to cover this this these matters because because of the way that the nature of the split in the sa but i don't hear any of that stuff there aren't any specific examples but never get given except style differences because every don't know twenty when this is presented in this trial to stop after each witness and say i let's go through the last hour and a half of questioning well he has that i'd like you to asking i've got ten minutes while the jury is staring at us to scribble down somebody you don't have two minutes you've got that hour and a half down a note or something of that one of their inquiring to be main and said well i want to follow up on this this one question after you know that you asked earlier i mean so so it's not like you've got one minute him over th if the attorney can then get up and attempt to correct that by asking the questions themselves rather than asking the other turning to formulate the questions based upon their thoughts on the fly and hanis other notes while the jury isn't watching you do that