person who wanted to get the information was franklin bryant he asked him that he was represented by attorney anthony forwards and the person who was soliciting their order for hire was christian shephard and he ascertained that in the case in which mr sheppard was an inmate tompkins came down to talk to mr nick that afternoon and again mr nick explained what had happened and that he that his client franklin bryant had gone to both county authorities had given him information had given them a mac but cellmate the defendant had given him and some other information and had told the authorities that he was willing to wear a wire to get it recorded record his conversations with the inmate at that point or at whatever point to in the him the other discussion was that mr tom who had said that he planned to have an emergency hearing the following day on a motion for almost to try and to be released for twenty four hours to visit his dying mother and the parties agreed that these state would not object furlough and that that would provide a convenient time for that mr bryant be released twenty four hours later would come back into the jail to be wired up out of the presence of the general population and then to world war and conversation with the defendant that is what conveyed there are certain ethical obligations on to use to prospective clients one of them is not to reveal any information that is obtained during the consultations and another is not to represent a quality whose interest he was consulted with regard to the sexual assault case these allegations didn't exist at the time of the consultations charged and it says to the extent that there might have been a problem with regard to the sexual assault case the trial judge ruled in the first hearing that  army i think that the fact that he talked to him might be enough and wouldn't need to rule with the requirements of what the defendant has to show or of what a party has to show the show and ethical violation of the fact that he had talked to him on a prior occasion and also represented bryant is enough to find a ethical violation you wouldn't have those those requirements in the rule it's the fact that mr sheppard was was revealed and in this situation if you represents a party that had may have an adverse interest that that was significantly harmful to the matter with which the defendant had consulted mr tucker words then there would ma practice coverage prices for four years because if that's all you need to if you don't need very much to say that you're stuck representing the person a lot of people are on the hook when they just had a whim or a meeting with a major deviation from normal practices i mean the case that i know there are cases out there were people who undertaken they've done things and so they so that's why they're there saying you were representing the person there's evidence that they present about things that have gone on but but this is this is not very much saying that all of sudden this national representation aside from the fact it was an arguable i mean that this would be a major shift in the window where is represent your references to his one point nine right which there is almost no sunshine or presumption when you're representing someone that there's material information that you received how do you apply that kind of concept as an one point nine to suggesting that all you have to say is there was a meeting and we can assume everything after that now we have sooner it was caught there was this important for mission material information that was  and they went through with that nick had to quietly through for three years until they finally talked about it the court found there was a false pleading filed in court because of that and he didn't bring this out later sue got this experience judge pharmacist tourney and he