to saddle the client with the mistakes of its attorney. The Court today properly rejects that rationale.” Id. at 405-06, 113 S.Ct. 1489. There is a small measure of inconsistency between the D.C. Circuit’s use of equitable principles in not holding a purely innocent and misled client liable for the neglect of counsel and the Supreme Court’s decisions in Link and Pioneer. But this court need not address this inconsistency any further. Even under the slightly more relaxed standard that the D.C. Circuit used in two deei-sions, which allow a client to avoid the consequences of his counsel’s malpractice, Moving Plaintiffs still fail to show circumstances that will allow this court to grant relief under Rule 60(b)(6). See L.P. Steuart, Inc. v. Matthews, 329 F.2d 234 (D.C.Cir.1964) (<HOLDING>), and Jackson v. Washington Monthly Co., et
holding trial court erred when it sanctioned client where the evidence showed that the attorney filed frivolous pleadings on behalf of the client but the client did nothing more than rely on her attorneys advice holding client is not liable for actions of attorney who misled client as to the status of case holding an attorney is an agent of the client and therefore cannot conspire with the client holding that an attorney who breaches a fiduciary duty to a client forfeits his right to compensation without any requirement that the client prove actual harm holding that an attorney may only undertake to represent a new client against a former client  where there is no confidential information received from the former client that is in any way relevant to representation of the current client