the attorney had withdrawn and the court was facing the issue of what proper admissions and what labors were necessary in that situation in the escobar case which is even more close race this case you haven't turned which the court been made there's something else we simply have an i j who for whatever reason failure to show up and we probably in other cases as well is just kind of at wit's end is that fair to  there is a tremendous problem in the immigration bar but the question is how does one result ok and the next question becomes if we take it to this point and if they have the right to counsel i'm sure it will be argued here as we're in the briefs you need prejudiced are we do we stop right here or is it prejudice per se because we have a split of authority among the circuits on this topic and we lawyer that's that you know if we find that it was a denial of the right to counsel that's the end of it even if there was almost an even if arguably there was nothing to save these people they were on the boat or on the plane or whatever  think it also seems i mean i think and struggling with let's say we were to say well he didn't have a case or she didn't have a case we always like to think that a lawyer can make a difference we would know for example even if you have no  may they give you a little longer on your time for voluntary departure because of your family situation or whatever so i suppose there are so many nuances in the immigration law that it might be difficult for us to expediting fact in certain cases the proceedings in this particular case however i'm just focusing on these aliens who show they were eligible for suspension because they were denied the opportunity to prove to present the case in any meaningful way indicated that he understood that then when it was played back to him and at the beginning of the second year he also indicated that he had understood that that was the case and he didn't have those choices in which to bring in another attorney but you see that's like saying but that kind of the eggs the question doesn't and that is whether the immigration judge without any specific notice of disciplinary proceedings against the lawyer can basically say to the client you can't have that it's prejudicial first today the reason being that we want to tell immigration judges that this is a very important right a very fundamental right and if you deny this right if you deny this right why shouldn't we have a rule which says if you deny the right of counsel that is prejudicial per se and there is no reason to make a further increase what's the reason not to have that rule exact rule isn't lollygag through many continuances and then finally shows up with a lawyer or doesn't show up with a lawyer because what we have here is we have a lawyer ready to go licensed by the bar apparently and both people say i want that i want her to represent me upon his previous ruling and and at that point in time immigration just didn't have a mechanism thank you on prevents to complain about a particular attorney or to prevent him from that hearing in his courtroom stand because the government doesn't have any proceedings we take it out on the petitioner i mean that doesn't seem like a logic that would get us to the result you want well i guess that it's not a first of months later and they show up with with mr hagan now it seems to me that the judge has to have some right to control the courtroom but why isn't why isn't the order to mr ballen audie not to show up in the courtroom or anybody else from his law firm so overbroad that it is that it is unreasonable that miffed hagen should be barred from the courtroom who has not appeared previously before the judge and is counsel of choice and i judge's ruling by filing some sort of motion or some sort of it's about the judge the judge's order is as you pointed out there had evidently were no no no mechanism no formal mechanism for the i j a to proceed as apparently there is in place today and i private if we have that in the record and leave you know he may be a bad apple i have no idea but if we had all the stuff in the record the judge said look it's not just this case but it's twelve other cases you're late you don't show up you miss proceedings we to these particular aliens actually and done anything to aggravate the court so they become it's sort of an odd thing maybe you could just clarify when did the regulations come into effect mechanisms that the judge could in effect discipline the attorney and whatever happens to the client is really overridden by the quinary action or the power trying to have his policies followed and followed which insist the widespread problem i'm trying i was intrigued by your remark about about the problems of you know of of the people showing up continually without of them with a lawyer ready to go it was no convenience for the judge to go forward that day it was denied and i appreciate that courts and judges have a need to control their courtney's but in the absence of direct contempt even ordinary civil court cannot