wait just a minute let everyone get settled please the court my name is richard shore and i'm here on behalf of appellant l l p your honour's the outcome of this appeal has ramifications far beyond the dispute between the parties if the district court's ruling is affirmed successful plaintiffs in any action with a few shifting component will have a perverse incentive not to conscientiously pursue with the shifting claim at least where counsel has been discharged because the plaintiff's obligation to its counsel would be capped by the amount of the few shifting recovery including a potential non recovery additionally there would be enormous uncertainty concerning the obligations of discharge counsel to provide legal services to its former client years after the discharge these points highlight the flaws in the district court's decision i want to just briefly state the facts in two thousand thirteen after prevailing on an exemplar claim brought under the for false claims act against state farm the relator spa the motion for post judgment relief that sought among other things an award of attorneys fees and expenses from state farm gilbert one reasonable step the court simply held that relator is had not submitted out of support for those fees and expenses and then in two thousand and seventeen after elaters received payment from state farm for the amounts awarded by the district court gilbert filed a motion essentially the parties gilbert in relator south cross motions regarding evaluation of gilbert's lien in september two thousand and seventeen the district court granted violators motion to extinguish gilbert's motion to the you it notwithstanding that gilbert head represented related for three years on a contingency fee basis in good faith and had zealously pursued and competently pursued related claims against state had unclean hands in connection with the two thousand and thirteen feet shifting motion as an initial matter the district court's extinguishment of gilberts lien is based on three false premises first that it was gilbert rather than relator there's that have the obligation to pursue a claim for fees and expenses in the few shifts in proceeding second that gilbert is discharged counsel is required to provide legal services to or later by determining what s expenses related to gilbert's representation relate or later should seek from state farm and by applying that those fees and expenses were reasonable in the context of the few shifting claim and third fees from the inhalators was capped by relator is recovery of a fee shifting award from state farm with respect to the first point under the plain language of the false claims act a few shifting award belongs to and therefore must be pursued by factual information or documentation that was in gilbert's possession they were entitled to ask for it and go but would have provided it here gilbert provided everything that related counsel asked for except for a planning on the reasonableness of those fees with respect to the second point related dispute that they were asking gilbert to perform legal services but this is simply untrue elaters were clearly asking gilbert to provide not simple factual information and supporting documentation but we're also asking gilbert to make strategic determinations about what fees and expenses to seek to upon on the reasonable is of such fees and expenses in the context of the few shifting claim and to exercise legal judgment in doing so the latest counsel made clear that they were going to submit whatever gilbert provided to them without exercising any meaningful oversight review or judgment related to us were asking for legal work that gilbert could not perform given that had been discharged two years before and finally with respect to the third point throughout their briefing later sarky repeatedly that a fee shifting award is dispositive of the amount a former client owes to discharge counsel no mention of any limitation on the plaintiff's attorneys fees claim against the plaintiff the supreme court flatly rejected their labors position in the vatican's case holding that a claim for fees by a plaintiff against a defendant in a few shifting contest is distinct from a claim for fees by the law firm against the plaintiff it's counselor form that it's trying to form a coun latest position is also contrary to public policy and logic because it would create a person traverse incentive for successful plaintiff either not to make or not zealously to pursue a field ward at least as respects discharged councils fees and expenses because why do so its obligations to its former lawyer would be kept by the few shifting or covering the district court's eroni of unclean hands ruling has three separate components that i want to touch on first that gilbert arguably as the court said did not fully comply with mississippi roll of professional conduct one point one six d which requires a terminated attorney to takes quote take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect the client's interest second to gilbert's actions violated the terms of its engagement letter with related and third that gilbert again arguably caused misrepresentations to be made to the court or induced which included nomic attorneys and the itemized fee entries none of these bases establishes unclean hands rule one point one sixty states and point term upon terminations of a representation a lawyer she take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client's interest such as getting reasonable notice to the client a lot in time for employment of a counsel surrendering papers and property to which the client is entitled and refunding any advance payment that is not in our district court's interpretation of the rule one point one sixty expands the rule to unprecedented threats and would create substantial uncertainty if affirm the plain text o one point one six as well as the case law interpreted the rule makes clear that the purpose of the rule is to provide for a smooth transition from discharge counsel to replacement counsel and to ensure adequate representation during the transition neither the relator nor the district court cite to a single case that required discharge counsel to perform substantive work for a former client nearly two years after the representation was terminated as the district court here held it was obligated to do this interpretation is not supported by the plain language of the rule the rules established is what discharge partner at gilbert who supervised relator scase against state farm and performed a substantial amount of the work in connection with that matter there are layers of contention because rule one point one six requires discharge counsel to maintain and provide documents it follows that gilbert was required to produce an affidavit of reasonableness is a non sequitur nothing in the record here establishes that gilbert refused to provide related with any documents or information they were twisted instead of the only thing they delivered is the record demonstrates that gilbert declined to do was to provide an affidavit selecting the fees that state farm that hands brown was that gilbert breach the terms of his engagement letter this is incorrect oh the district court relied on a position provision in the agreement stating that relator is in gilbert quote agreed to seek recovery of all costs and expenses from the defendants and or the government to the extent that such recovery is permitted under applicable law as quote the district court concluded that this provision survive terminations of the attorney client relationship notably or expenses from state farm there's no support for the notion that any such requirement survive terminations of the agreement the language relied on by the district court required gilbert to represent relatedness in seeking recovery from state farm however that provision was subject to the relator unfettered right to terminate gilbert's representation that terminations was unqualified incomplete thus whatever obligation gilbert had to represent related in connection with costs and expenses was terminated just as with gilbert's obligation to represent the later years in connection with f c a claims the terminations provision states that state farm must reimburse gilbert in accordance with the costs and expenses provision but it does not state that gilbert retains the obligation to pursue reimbursement of costs and expenses from state farm that obligation was terminated along with every other aspect of gilbert's representation of the later or later as in any event the obligation to pursue obligation to assist the lakers in seeking recovery of costs and expenses gilbert satisfied its obligations in response to the tasing copley's two thousand and thirteen or bust gilbert provided a spreadsheet detailing the contained basically the same information related provided concerning weisberg and tasing copies expenses and those were reimbursed at ninety percent well good works were only reimbursed at twenty eight percent and finally your honour's gilbert did not make any misrepresentation to the court similar to its breach of contract ruling the court the district court sue a sponsor held the gilbert arguably caused misrepresentations to be made to the court were induced or later still make represent misrepresentations to the court and the arguable misrepresentations consisted of a column headed heading label to turning in a spreadsheet of gilbert's fees that also included not attorney gilbert personnel the mislabeled heading was in must be established by clear and convincing evidence neither standards or even close to neither of those standards or are even close to being satisfied here but cursory review of government expense spreadsheet demonstrates that any error in the heading w reasonably found to have intended to mislead elaters the use of the word attorneys was simply shorthand in the same way as attorneys fees is regularly used to include our bill or so we ask them that this court reversed the district court exercise billing judgement or even say how much it thought it was owed in quantum arrow it under mississippi law worse you know also refused to provide a declaration or any other potential supporting evidence that the response could use to recover those fees and expense the question before this court is can gilbert come back four years later and use the very evidence it with helped to make the rick's piece pay for these expenses that could have been recovered from state farm the district court opinion holding that gilbert acted improperly and  district court ruling but if this court reaches the substance of the argument give it also has been such of defense for why i didn't give these things its primary response is that the false claims act only in titles related to seek fees and expenses but that does not address the fact that gilbert had two other indisputable turn of the avenues in which it could have presented evidence that would have fostered a recovering excuse expenses from state farm first it's beyond dispute the give could have is largely based on mischaracterizing the reach of his request for basic billing related evidence as a request for legal representation for the simple fact of the matter is your owner's the reason he asked your attorneys to be witnesses not lawyers they asked them to sign a declaration that said what they did and why it was reasonable and provide documents in the possession that are relevant including receipts on page seven of its reply brief gilbert sort of set the rigs was a knowledge what they're not intentional and i take it you disagree well your honor i think that that issue and it was one that the district court stated is you know it's a separate apart issue from whether or not that was adequate evidence arguably misrepresented it so i don't think that's the primary basis for discourse decision i think it was much more the giver withheld you know important evidence that the clients needed and wouldn't even tell them what they thought they were and supreme court of the united states the supreme court of mississippi in mississippi rule of professional conduct one point five zero required gilbert to exercise bill in judgment the supreme court said it has levy at the heart sprinkle of mississippi in about the columbus have tell company and it's undisputed to give it refused to do that refused to hel expenses mississippi rule of professional conduct one point one six d says that upon terminations representation it works will take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect the client's interest the parties for the duration of the client's litigation to maintain and turn over relevant evidence in your possession of the client needs and in this case what the reason is ask what rate it would gilbert refused to provide all squarely within that category receipts for gilbert basic foundation and hearsay requirements for that for that document the hearsay rule requires any testimony courtney declaration based on first hand knowledge no one had first hand knowledge of the of what foundation for that argument for that for that document much less upon is the reason because of each of those each of the entries on it additionally you have the problem of the cut the efforts conflict we talked about how the matter what position he did if he tried to punt on the reasonableness of those it would could use against him so he did what what was what was appropriate which is he said gilbert you take a position you tell us what you think you're owed you tell us why you tell us what your analysis is in a point now it will look at it and if we don't have a big objectionable presented to the court but you refuse because it want to put the clients in a box that it wasn't tom put them it additionally it with it would be impossible when you think about it i'm not a cli yes the same lead attorney was about firms but we're talking about over four thousand entries on a spreadsheet that were built through over a three year period two to five years earlier by thirty eight different lawyers i don't remember what i was doing on a given day four years ago and i certainly don't know what thirty gathering thirty eight other attorneys who may be working on similar matters were doing on that day the only way you really could do and thoroughly did and appropriately support those entries would be to go to the attorneys who build those hours and have them look at their records refresh the recollection say yes this is what i did on the case and here's why i think this amount of time was reasonable but cooper refused to do that and the current attorneys don't have access to go to stories they keep the interview the attorneys they can't they don't have access to the records and as a result the current tourney's could not best source of that would be the e mail exchanges that we included in our appendix and if you look at that you mail exchanges i believe that they focus on exactly what's replacing three things they were repeatedly asking them tell us what you think you and give us can you give us an example out of hospital out of time reading from the record but can you give us an example of specifically what was said or what was asked sure your honor  have it's two five one seven eight ok he says i think you'll be a mistake not to put this in from the court at this time the court may decide that you are entitled to reasonable fees so it makes no sense to me why you would risk waiving whatever right may have by rejecting are in the taishan to submit send us an edited bill there's we're asking for the number for them to write to exercise billing judgment there reflects your representation of your response fees we will submit the court and again so we were asking them to come for an explanation what date was this the date on this e mail is may second twenty thirty so this is may second twenty thirteen there's an entire email exchange and it's in our appendix going back and forth about that access billing judgement they said we are taking another look and if there are any additional adjustments who send you an updated spreadsheet we will not be submitting an affidavit regarding our fees and expenses best barry that was their answer the concept of sleeping on provide a statement a declaration that we could use to support the fees and expenses and they refused and you know what how did you benefit by virtue of their sleeping  these two guys are these guys a band in my court room a lot i've seen the work they've done i'm aware of what they personally have done so i'm going to give gilbert his these expenses for them there are thirty six other people on this time sheet that i have no idea who they are and i have no idea what they did and i have no idea what their years of experience are exactly the sort of stuff you put in a declaration to justify reese movies expenses he said because i don't have that evidence i can't award this and so it was a dreck relation relation to g we believe under a plain language reading of that it specifically says that the recovery of expenses after terminations will be governed by the terms of the by the terms of a in the cost expenses attorneys the section that engagement agreement court a concise but clear explanation if their own attorneys would even say what they think they were owed and explain why they think it was reasonable in short your honour's the dish of course decision is well founded in the law supported by ample evidence which is the fairest possible result for what what what relator is needed to submit was a determination of what gilbert fees costs and expenses they wanted to see from state farm it's not so i'm kind of generalized notion of what's reasonable or what was incurred it's a strategic judgment it's a legal judgment of what are you entitled to and what do you want to seek and we were not in a position to make those judgments those are legal judgments on behalf of state farm was probably tasing copley had made clear that they were going to submit whatever we gave them in other words they were shifting to us the responsibility to be related as lawyers on the gilbert portion of the fee claim and we couldn't do that we couldn't consult with her later years because they were not our client we couldn't make legal judgments on their behalf so that's part of a and part b is we could not file something directly on our own behalf because we don't have any standing and we don't have accept your offer to submit our fees and expenses to the court understanding understanding it will do so subject to the qualifications noted in your email below but this is an email of may second two thousand and thirteen responding to mr expenses as i noted in my prior email this spreadsheet reflects adjustments based on the normal billing process review we understand that your formal be performing a substantive review to ensure that none of the entries reveal anything privileged on friday may third at nine thirty nine am mr buxton's response was thanks audie we are taking another look and if there are any additional adjustments we will send you an updated spreadsheet so we gave them a spreadsheet with all of our time entries for which we were we believe we are entitled to payment ohm we said that it was reasonable we said that it reflected editing and we corrected and made a new reviewing correcting errors when they were pointed out to except for an affidavit that would say these are the fees and expenses out of the totality that were incurred by gilbert that we related as i want to see from state farm making the strategic judgment about what to see and then  opining on reasonableness we didn't do that because we believe that doubt that would have been representing relator is as their counsel in making those determinations and we could not do that but everything else they asked for we gave them we gave them all of our time entries all of our all of our fees all of our expenses mr copley complains that we didn't give them documentation of the expenses they didn't ask for documentation of the expenses they did not ask for receipts it's nowhere in the record and the proof that they didn't ask for it and didn't want it and didn't need it is that for widespread batasan copley's and high level burke's expense  submission in two thousand and thirteen they did not attach copies of of receipts copies of invoices or anything else that they now falsely complaining to this court we didn't give them the bottom line is in the lakers were essentially trying to shift to gilbert the totality of the responsibility for pursuing this claim for figuring out how to pursue it and actuated the pursuit of the claim even to the hearing to expire and now mr schorr thank