focus on this appeal is the issue of whether or not there was a genuine material issue of fact as to whether there was probable cause to institute the underlying action and going to prosecute the underlying  action the matter was heard in the district court and the interesting facts in this case is that the underlying litigation was a prolonged litigation and it had visited the connecticut appellate court twice in the supreme court  and in the course of the case it became readily apparent that the plaintiffs in the underlying action defendants here testified in the underlying case that they had never read the reports of the accountant that they sued so mr freberg was hired as an accountant for the fight do shiri of an estate and the reports were never read the reports were given to the i understand the testimony may have been that they were given to the defendants but they were never considered and that was clear through the appellate courts through the supreme court and the supreme court decision is based in large part of the fact that they never considered it it's also interesting in that case as a as opposed to an ordinary accounting malpractise case or and the malpractise action was based soley on the  plaintiff the defendant here reliance on reports prepared by my client mr freberg and from the beginning of the case the testimony was clear that they did not and the fraud claims that were raised in the state court were also based on reliance on the reports of the account so as the supreme court in connecticut noted that it's an unusual complaint it's an unusual way to approach accounting malpractise but it was all exclusively reliance and the fraud claimed by oral what byte by connecticut law is based on reliance because under connecticut law fraud is really intentional misrepresentation and it requires an affirmative statement of  fact which is which is false and so in this case from day one from day one the plaintiffs knew they could not stablished that they relied on the reports and that's  sure no no it's a key issue in the case and i thought about it a fair amount st of all when you when you when you look at the decision of the supreme court st of all you have to know that even justice ever lay did not disagree that they had not relied on they had not read the reports his opinion was that you look at it in a broader context and that reliance is always an issue of fact and that's basically what the appellate court decided also but the appellate court isn't deciding probable cause the supreme court isn't deciding probable cause what they're deciding is whether or not there is a genuine material issue of fact and well that your honor could say well that there you go is that something that the attorneys entitle to rely on for a couple reasons i don't think they are st of all the attorney and the client had knowledge that they could not stablished the element of reliance they played a complaint based on reliance which they knew not only that they could not prove they actually had evidence which was contrary to conclusion and so to that extent i don't think you can separate the factual analysis from the dissent in the in the supreme court and of course the  was reversed by the supreme court and i don't think as a result in fact if you look at the supreme court decision they actually specifically note that the appellate court didn't even consider this issue didn't even consider whether or not there was there was actual reliance and and so as a result the same issues weren't considered and two when you look at it at the at the end of the day it is a dissent and the dissent isn't well off it isn't something that carries a collateral stoppel value it may be of interest and it is only may be a fact but it is not a conclusion and remember we're in a summary judgment stage where the issue for me is whether or not there evidence about not reading the report so i take it that william says he didn't read the report there similar testimony from her and yes there is and even more so the papers i think some of what he's arguing about reliance is if you were allied in a slightly different way so not that he personally read and you know considered the the reports and relied on them in that sense but that the fact that your client had been hired and he understood your client to be a representative everybody's interest not just  but they relied on the fact that in accounting had been hired as a basis for not seeking certain relief earlier on in the case i think i agree or and i think it's a general reliance that he's talking about that there's an account involved now so i guess my question is maybe that's a valid kind of reliance maybe it's not so why isn't there at least probable cause under that standard to say i relied in that sense in the sense that i didn't take action because i understood there was an accountant well it's just an interesting way there could in some circumstances support probable cause if that was the lawsuit that they brought but the problem is that's not the lawsuit that they brought they sued for the false reports and and you know i bounced this around the other day in my mind i thought about what is what is page two of mr freberg st report said by the way kenneth is stealing money and he took one million two hundred and eighty seven thousand dollars  the the stuarts would never have known that because they never read the reports and so in terms of the context of their complaint it doesn't support probable cause for the complaint they brought and i do these suspicions recently developed and they had to hire forensic accountant to determine what was going on well they didn't develop the suspicion from the reports because they hadn't considered the reports  they they had their suspicions before mr freberg was hired because they had instituted a lawsuit challenging the conduct of tennis and so their suspicions were aroused anyway and so it didn't have anything it doesn't appear that there's any evidence that suggest it had anything to do with a report prepared by mr freeport now they may have thought that mr freberg had a duty to run to them and tell them something's going on that doesn't appear to be the case and if they were going to make that claim if we break down the complaint st of all on the fraud claim which is essentially intentional misrepresentation there is no statement they can identify that was a false statement and so even if you accepted that sense analysis in the supreme court it doesn't answer the question as to fraud because they never a doubt a fight a statement made that they did i don't think was breached by anybody and you know if the law is pretty well established in connecticut that you look at it's a claim by claim basis i don't find that i find that i'm not disagreeing with you i have said i haven't counter researched it to be honest with you but but it's the number of in my experience both as a lawyer and a judge as the number of times you see rather lonely claim tacked on at the end of a complaint  same way because i'm going well if my practice as a lawyer your job is to bring all the claims you can bring legitimately for your client and you know it and i and i understand that but but however in fact is tied into what i was going about to say before you asked a question which  isn't one of the briefs and in opposition to the point was raised that well you know there were other claims that they could have brought that was a five summary judgment and it's not a defense to say but we had you know maybe this it didn't have probable cause but i had some other your to figure out what was going on because these records were designed to hide information they were designed to obfuscate and make it difficult to understand penetrate into the darkness what was going on and ultimately mr dusty a forensic accountant made several findings which were instrumental in the resolution of the underlying theme action including the preparation of two separate sets of financial statements decision justice at least that this this this kind of forbearance can be considered to be a species of reliance with as time passed and things were not in the more we're the  honor may please the court i am michael ryan and i represent the defendant sandra a curry and understood the district court properly concluded that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether the without it the point is clear probable cause is defined as a bona fide belief in the existence of facts essential under the law for the action and such as would warrant a person of ordinary caution prudence and judgment under the circumstances and entertaining it the standard is what a reasonable person would leave and probable cause affords attorneys wide latitude to pursue novel and difficult claims only mar correct even if it's very unlikely that their clients will prevail in this case your honour's attorney curry had a bona fide belief that all of the claims were supported by the facts and the law st as to the misrepresentation claims she had a bona fide belief in the existence of facts which would warrant a person of ordinary caution prudence and judgment in entertaining it she had represented william and jonathan stewart in the steward's the sewer chase and was familiar with all the claims pleadings the discovery the investigation testimony and evidence from that she had extensive discussions with john dempsey the forensic accountant who reviewed the state accountings and mr  attorney curry curry could not have had probable cause to bring the ms claims for misrepresentation because they could not stablish the essential element of reliance plaint premise that argument on the claim that the stewards had already instituted in action against canon jr claiming the exact same facts that they claim that mr probert concealed from them however the premise attorney a curry had ample basis to believe that her clients had relied on mr freiberg statements st of all they told her that they had received and reviewed copies of mr freiberg reports and had relied on them before she filed the complaint william conferred with attorney curry to review and approve the draft complaint on behalf of himself and jonathan she sent them a copy of it once it was filed in state court and  also as attorney occurring notes in her affidavit william stewart told her that he and jonathan had been at a store called the talbot house and wilton and had looked at documents had looked at documents freiburg had prepared and had called freiburg at cannes invitation to discuss those reports attorney there was also this evidence that tourney a curry was aware of an invoice from mr freiberg to stewart and sons one of the state entities in may of two thousand noting that he built time for communication with jonathan concerning financials and taxes william stewart's deposition in the stewart the stewart case in that deposition he said he saw portions of bribers reports and question freiburg about them now that this is the document plaintiffs claim indicate that there could be no reliance because they didn't read the reports however they clearly read the reports and at least she had probable cause to believe that from sitting through this deposition in the stewart case there was also williams testimony before judge brennan where mr william  at the reports from freiburg william stewart rather and jonathan confirm this information it is deposition in our case he said he reviewed the statements when he received them he looked at them he said he reviewed the reports and he read them over the years he reviewed the annual ports and he read them so based on everything attorney occurring knew from her handling of the stewart matter and from or discussions with the stewards and her discussions and communications with dempsey she had more than enough found that there was sufficient that was evidence sufficient to raise an issue of material frak fact as the fraud and negligence representation claims the nd issue is whether turning currie had probable cause to bring the action for accounting malpractise and it's our position that she did definitely have that probable cause because of action requires proof of a duty to conform to a standard of care deviation from the standard injury in a causal connection she pleaded all of these elements in the complaint which is attached to her affidavit in the case she pleaded that turning mr  information in accordance with the standard of care freiburg fail to comport to the standard of care in a number of ways many of which are an even reliance so she had alleged all those and she had more than enough basis to believe that they were the intended beneficiaries of the state mr and even in mr freiberg rule fifty six dollars a statement he agrees with the facts that supported a good  intended beneficiaries specifically ok mr ryan closing words closing words your honor as we believe there was more than enough probable cause it's a question of what she believed when she brought prosecuted the action she had probable cause to bring all did you hear me now yes well ok i have to but the wrong way ok i'll try to try to be to the point st of all in looking at this case i thought about it in a different way if you look at what the supreme court decided in this case mr ryan's arguments about what his clients say happened his client says happened or refuted by the actual findings of two courts in the trial court below and then  underlying action and the supreme court which clearly find that it that he testified that mr boats jonathan and his brother testified that william that he did that they did not read the reports and their testimony he's talking about is this cagey testimony i might have seen them or what nowhere was there any testimony that said they actually saw the contect content of the report and relied on it and that's made clear in the supreme court decision to raise that issue now really doesn't change the complection of the case and by the way the defense that they're using is that mr freiberg must have done a lot of bad things and so there was a reason to assume  everything you talks about by the way we do dispute his statements concerning what mr freiberg did or didn't do with mr freiberg testified to as he reported it appropriately but there isn't a place that's necessarily report on an accounting report  stealing or taking money that we was it was crediting it against the the person receiving it so that it would be clearly reflected as being taken by him but that's the context of all that it's got nothing to do with this case and the reason it doesn't is because the issue is that the lawyer pled only and mr grant i think acknowledged that detrimental reliance and what mr ryan was referring to is things that might have been wrong with the reports but for purposes of causation and damages the only claim is that that was detrimental reliance on the report that link was never there and when i thought about it if you think for a nd would there have been probable cause let's exclude the appellate court decisions client comes into the office and says i'd like to sue this account because the reports that i never read misled me as an attorney is there a reasonable attorney who would bring a malpractise case claiming that reports were deficient that were never relied on by the client never read never considered not dealt with and the answer would be no you'd be bringing a complaint with an utterly false allegation and the allegations in this complaint were false and they testified to to that through the course of the litigation to the extent that the supreme court included those statements in repair phrasing them in its decision and so when you look at it that way the supreme court the appellate court isn't just vision don't change anything it's it's what a thought because i think it is important also the connecticut law is is a little bit mixed on when you determine probable cause most court states at the time of the bringing the action but it's also it's also relevant if you continue prosecuting the action when this action proceeded and both parties testified that they did not rely on those reports because they did not consider them at that point you have should have been withdrawn to proceed anyway the court was i think an error in granting summary judgment i think there is a genuine material issue of fact because there's i think that point was made by opposing counsel because there are a series of facts concerning reliance and so if that's the case there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial and under connecticut will have the issue of probable cause as an issue of fact for the jury thank you thank you very much thank you both that concludes our oral arguments for this morning