dischargeable under five twenty three day four of the bankruptcy code the purpose of this appeal is not to challenge the basis for the findings of negligence there are no facts in dispute here however the bankruptcy co an expectation your honor that goes to the core of our appeal our appeal is based on the fact that the underlying courts base their decision on a violation of the rules of professional conduct and not the elevated standard required by five twenty three eight for mr johns conduct was negligent however he does not offer any defense for that conduct he didn't meet the rules of conduct and that resulted in the legal malpractise judgment however as he even though he didn't meet the standard of care required for an attorney both can pierce and require a showing of something more than mere negligence bolex sets forth what amounts to a culpable state of mind requirement while the record is clear as to two things that all the courts underlined this one have found that mr kora was represented by mr charlie and mr drawing was his attorney however at every phase underline this part mr charlie has testified that his belief was that he was not mr chorus attorney therefore it's clear from the record that at the time and nobody has believed nobody has taken that seriously right that that seemed pretty good and yet at the same time he's trying to argue that he did pretty good reasonable care of the interests of this person that he also contends was not his client that's a very confusing position to maintain i don't think that mr drawing can maintain that he had maintained a reasonable standard of care because there was a legal malpractise judgment that was entered against him however mr  contention is that the underlying court's when examining his conduct did not require evidence of something more than a violation of the rules of conduct well i guess my biggest problem with that argument in your attack on the district court and bankruptcy court decisions as so sweeping is i guess i just don't read them the same way i read them as saying careful quite cheerfully that this violation was reaches so far beyond the pale that it's reasonable to infer from that circumstantial evidence of the egregiousness that he at least meant to gross recklessness standard under the bill case neglect was evidence of a series of issues in the representation that the the the attorney mess in our case the court did arrive it did face and conclude correctly that compounding factors as was the case just you know just describe that this is just so beyond the pale failing to even communicate directly with your client other than through the lawyer for the opposing parties but that's not just negligent it's grossly reckless i guess i that seems like a perfectly reasonable conclusion to  bankruptcy court and the district court did arrive as in its in their conclusion that mr charlie's conduct amounted to gross recklessness however i think absent from both opinions i failure of his duty to his client and his elderly clients suffered terribly as a consequence  i i really in this case isn't a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law abiding person would  opposing counsel to represent an elderly man who speaks no english there's no sales contract no title insurance there's no way for mr you are going to find out what his client wants because they don't speak the same language except from the opposing side of the deal and i know that the court didn't rely on the sale price but let's face it a thirty five thousand dollars sale for a property with a one hundred sixty one hundred  thousand dollar praise is patently suspicious i this is a this is a case that is really very me i understand the court's position and i do understand that there are suspicious circumstances however i think that that needs to be weighed against the bankruptcy code so intent that there be a very clear and elevated showing evidence of something more i think that the court is correct in pointing out that there was no evidence of value that its opinion could be based upon counsel this case reminds me of a legal problem from a different area the law but having to do with eighth amendment deliberate indifference to the health and safety of prisoners were deliberate indifference or criminal recklessness is treated as the standard and infirm are against brenin the supreme court explained that the very obviousness of the danger or the risk could support an inference of actual knowledge in those recklessness and i would think that that kind of circumstantial evidence of your client's state of mind based on the obviousness of the violations the regis this  would also be reasonable here i think that mr charlie conduct and his state of mind it was that upon observing mr cora who  the record reflects was although elderly and individual that managed his own finances he observed him stop the closing to go to the bank and recognize the funds at his account and even though he couldn't speak english the dollar is a universal language i think that mr charlie's contract doesn't rise to the level of gross negligence because it would be a can to a person in a vehicle approaching yelp like their failure to brak if that the underlying judgement should be reversed as there are no disputed issues fact around this kind of not being recklessness to a story is because it doesn't make sense there are so many factors that occurred to him during the closing that nothing did happen could really described as simply being negligence so what's the strongest evidence that mr cora wanted a life estate and where do we find it judge that's one of the exhibits was the transcript from underlying trial court which included the portion of the closing where the trial state judge concluded that that was what mr quirke would had hoped if the condo there was a conclusion that the state trial it it's just such a fundamental part of being a lawyer that you actually communicate with your client that you know what they want in order to do anything for your client i just can't fathom coming anywhere with your client and saying i'm going to do this for you and put into even know that he represented mr gore as he wants to claim to help of course everything what hey why are at this he wasn't looking out for his interests at all he helped me and couldn't speak english stuff home that he looked in for his entire and there was just nothing that could be presented that would show that this was something other than gross recklessness if not deliberate indifference and if there aren't any questions i don't have anything to have because the to both counsel and the case will be taken under advisement and the court will be in recess