whether there is a issue with respect to attorney's fees with respect to the performance rating yes also not before this court ok at least not at the start the issue here is whether given the statutory requirement that corrective action shelf involve tourney's and awarded three cs whether an award for best lab it's time has counsel she was the only counsel for roughly october two thousand was resolved she should have filed something which said ok these are the items which are genuine and reasonable and reimbursable and that she didn't do that actually she did your honor understand the chronology board the information about what happened at the arbitration at the gorge request so that if a nation was before the war and i had argued before the board so far but work my question is about the additional step of saying ok here is the fia war two hundred thousand dollars whatever it was and here's where the time records that reasonably support that claim and please award me that submitted about the reasonableness of the fees after the settlement of the feeling the result of the settlement the fact of the settlement the amount of the settlement the details of the settlement were submitted to the board no longer now i understand that the that's not it seems to me sufficient to show the reasonable this of the fees i think what the board is saying rightly or wrongly is that after that happened you should have come in and said here's why our claim is two hundred thousand dollars and why that's reasonable and in reviewing the time records and vouching for the reasonableness of the claim that that didn't happen right i actually your honor i believe it did happen  part of that what did she submit something which said here is where we find the two hundred thousand dollars worth of reasonable fees and ms slab it's billing records and she didn't do that that's correct that's the proc right well for the nature of the resolution before the arbor arbitration board did not break down that way they gave the total number from that total number one can determine the number of reasonable hours that we thought were correct i could also focus for if i can for a moment on the super case which the panel brought to our attention late last week and her feet was denied i think it's i think it's one sentence and maybe two ok so i basically i'm arguing to you that consistent with the language in slim fold there was that's why we're here we have presented to the to the to this court to methods of calculating the attorneys fees there's three basic sets of data necessary to calculate the fee first is the number of hours the second is a reasonable rate and third is the most apply or two of those have already been resolved by the board or else have not been challenged by the agency on appeal here what happened in the future proceeding and the d c bar creation and what was that basically an issue about the reasonable those of the fees that were being charged it was a slightly a whistleblower act and in the course of that proceeding did your client identify the time charges that were not reasonable we we were in the process of doing that on a case that occurred before this board before this court today though we have no challenge to the to the attorney for the rate that the slab a call for in her retention agreement and i don't think there's any argument about the multiplier point for the board order we certainly don't challenge it here and happy with it but we don't challenge it so the only real issue it seems to me for determining a feel ward is the number of hours we have the agency's own admission as to the number of a reasonable hours here which they came up with six hundred ninety one i think lopped off about one hundred fifty three where i'm not sure that there is such an admission where do you find that admission in the record of them one of them makes that point i think you are going a bit too far in suggesting that they agreed that some portion of the fees was reasonable i was actually referring to the hours but are that's what i mean the hours my recollection of the proceeding before the ministry of justice wasn't the agency took the position that no fee could be awarded because of the conflict of interest actions they did say that but they also said that no fee should be awarded because of the failure to document reasonable i just don't recall that before the  as a minute by her attorney then at a minimum to meet her burden of establishing the reasonableness she can identify those hours that she disagrees with and say these are the hours i disagree with the case where the client has had the burden to say that it took the lawyer too long to perform a certain function and i'm nothing that is a burden because have in every case that's not what you're saying no i attorneys billings then she did take on the burden of saying these are the hours that are not reasonable and these the hours that are in most cases we don't have an african fact i frankly not aware of any other case where an word of zero is appropriate in this case but alternatively the government did come up with their proposal for a reasonable number of hours and post six hundred ninety one so that doesn't that show that it's not that hard that people can look at these records to court and look at the records or at least know that this was so counsel for a period of years and that there must be some reasonable number of powers from the statute says that some attorney fees much shall be awarded  rumsey after pressing a slacker for that information just like any client would when they are presented with invoices from an attorney that they don't understand so what happened here if i understand question is that what she should have done after the settlement of the fee dispute well i think by the time it had been settled my recollection is that the record before the board been closed because it was   my reading of it indicates that there's nothing in that case that at all that compels an award of attorney fees in this case and i say that for a couple of reasons first of all in this limbo case this court even though we know that the district court that w statement saying in fact the norman case recognises that it just occurred itself has experience and terminating what are reasonable hours and reasonable fees and should rely on that experience or knowledge if the documentation is considered inadequate that's the most interesting thing of all to me about this case because although this court cites to norman for purportedly the delegation of a district court to order something useless what that sentence seem opinion that led to this unfold appeal he says this court had the privilege of sitting with the eleventh circuit court of appeals and the opportunity to write for that court decision of dormant if we look at norman in fact the district court judge opinion is being reviewed in some follow of such far struck me the same as he is the author of the opinion norman so clearly the author of the norman opinion did not believe that norman stood for the prop for the proposition that a we're talking about a statute that says shall be awarded yes or why under those circumstances isn't there an obligation on the part of the board to make a determination a reasonable man is drawing on and stick its experience maybe where an applicant demonstrates reasonable for use there is no discretion afterword them because of the shout but it doesn't take away their pirate and the advocate in the first place meet their burden of demonstrating reason with us what if some of the time records why i mean it's hard to imagine that in the two years that that misled was representing that there was not a single reasonable hour ex i wouldn't say that it's not possible i'm likely there were some reasonable hours expense i really don't know because in fact this record is replete with criticism by the administrative judge of this last time that throughout the pre hearing and hearing are you saying that on this record that it's reasonable to suppose that the slab of didn't spend any reasonable hours seems some extreme position well i would say it is reasonable on this record but i don't think the court needs to reach that that's not really the basis that the board made its opinion it didn't say messiah was such a terrible attorney then therefore it's at reasonable what the board said and said was we don't have a factual basis to determine the reasonable but important question for you yes can the board will get time records pick out fifteen examples of things like what you're talking about talking to reporters and then say well the rest of them are unreasonable could the board do that yes ye because you're pointing out examples but i can point out countering samples where it sounds reasonable on its face and these time records were submitted to the board and so is it part is it proper from word that it is shallow  or attorney fees when you receive records to look at identify fifteen to twenty occurrences even duplicated work or work or there's talking to reporters and making copies and then say well they're all in reason straight so we have this lengthy detailed affidavit from the attorney saying reassure all the things that i didn't it touches all the bills and so on and so there it is on its face it looks fine to his rooms he writes a letter and s these that creates a different situation when she paid the two hundred thousand dollars and some of the few disputed surely she reached the conclusion that at least two hundred thousand dollars worth of this was the filing and she says in the body of the document she seeks to intervene in this case for the sole purpose of receiving a notice of pleadings and making writing ability to apply for turns things are she wanted to be able to participate and that in turn is the process that with what was tonight again page eighty nine of the appendix by the court i only have one or two other points to make one is yes we could have gone reduced by a by a flat percentage and that is what we have proposed before the court and here lastly i'd like to make the point that the prohibited personal actions that we were involved with here occur in two thousand and seven and two thousand and eight these fees were incurred and many of which were paid for in two thousand and eight to two thousand and nine through two thousand and eleven and then subsequently i believe in two thousand and fourteen because of that there is no quorum and no decisions can be made by the board level except for very limited nature it's my understanding that the president has not nominated anyone for either the two vacancies and while there's a legislation pending in congress to address the lack of a quorum of the board i have no idea whether that legislation is going to pass in other words should this case be remanded it will be a substantial