came in to argue against the motion to enforce the settlement that had been fired by the defendant at least in this case the reason she hired the attorney wasn't to pursue the case at the time he got involved and that's another reason why i don't believe there was a break in the really some evidence of the second attorney did something wrong that he could have refile the case even to dismiss without prejudice within didn't do it but he still had time to diligently trying to obtain service on defendants but didn't do it here there's really nothing mr wizner did or didn't do that more practice that i saw talk about whether or not it could be the fuel what's the success likelihood on appeal plus in order to make that argument i think they have at least would have to show that business an appeal would have been pursued it would have been successful and there's no evidence in the record  they had in once she did that then that leaves would have to give her final back and the case would be assigned to another judge as judge should it pointed out there's nothing in the record going to indicate even the status of that case if you look at the hearing record a transcript from  seven on the motion to enforce sentiment the attorney for the defendant in your mind case metropolitan laboratory he pointed out that at that point there was no reason to set aside the dismissal anyway because no experts had been disclosed the case was ready for trial and there was nothing that could be got at that point anyway i think there are issues of fact well then was it a viable case or nat because we don't know yes the case went back for case management aphoristic the trial judge who said well there was already freeze order entered in here no access were disclosed that after he had a second attorney that was hired to review the song for him and he signed it with these papers and then eventually sue the initial turning the trial attorney for malpractise and the court did allow that case to proceed didn't he didn't really specifically address the additional discovery could create actual issues that was never raised before the trial court even really wasn't raised before this court so if there's questions of the record that certainly could have been addressed in child  rules pinions both in the mountain of practice case and in this malpractise case is that no watchwords were disclosed in terms of medical causation however he also indicates that plaintiffs could have voluntarily dismissed been any peer reversible entry limiting her to the witnesses that she had and secondly when mr wizner addressed judgment in this case he told the court that he would be able to pursue the medical malpractise case and of being a better settlement or her or her even with out an expert so the question of whether he successor tonsil and your honor mention simply a form on and where do we stand as may twenty first one hears the hearing where do we stand as of june eleventh two thousand when there is the order if we look at form over substance mr wizner file his appearance as well he indicated this is the record of page one of seventy that he was trial counsel that he was substitute counsel he did not indicate that he was additional counsel he did not indicate that he was apparently limited purpose of contesting the motion of force instead probably one of the most impressive depositions i've read in my career from my visit you can see that it's not a long time before the doctor was taken to her deposition gave her opinion regarding ability of the plaintiff to come up with some cash and that's why i think the that now that is where plaintiff would have his case go and you would ask courts in illinois to determine viability of cases used on practical considerations of your client's ability to the file a case following your withdraw that we call on attorneys who had taken a case then would be dropped it would with the attorneys agree when they took this case to recommend the few thousand dollars all the question is do we get from there again and maybe if you conclude mr was there was a successor attorney here there's no reason why he represented you would take over the case and was which meant viability was contingent on people i think you'd recognize is no that's the case is viable and the question then is who takes all responsibility for ensuring there remains viable and when my clients are out of the case they no longer have any responsibility to go in and titian the court to do anything to modify his order miss dennis was no longer able to to perform under the terms of that order or wh actually he won't be advancing any files on her behalf to do this action at that point you would have been appropriate going front of judge and will tell him i'm on the able to comply with his order because of x y z and the equitable circumstances then would have been done my clients didn't have any responsibility resent changing their circumstance let me your clients actually divorce their career i think it came about sometime between february and june of two thousand and seven and  it goes to is this my highest mad with their time and essentially had what they believe to be an agreed upon subtle miss than is believed she didn't agree with that or that