mr mail has your car you may precede it like you know that justice shit and justice carter are listening they're participating in this argument and they will be asking questions if they have any along have been before this honorable court sat under the st case obviously different legal issues but this is now be nd time on appeal that earlier law the appellate in this case is demonstrating the reasonable ness of specific item of services or work that was done that the apple leaves had been able to identify or that the court has identified as having been done in an inappropriate or on a reasonable unprofessional or unrequested way quite simply speaking the work that per your law p c did for the farriss and the underlying case here was done so pursuant to contracts for legal services setting forth the specific scope of the work to be done and all in accordance with the request of mr farris and his mother all of that was done with their knowledge and all that was done in a fashion that would be appropriate and expected for the sort of work that was called for and the underlined of course an order protection case i think it's worth noting that in the st order protection matter that was related to these parties fully defended mr ferris from the allegations set forth and that border protection case that was resulted with the order protection being dismissed and the divorce case obviously proceeding from there it was during the course of that representation in the divorce that injuries to the minor child issue became quite apparent we're talking bruises belt marks it was clear that someone was abusing the child and so per year law p c quite in terms of the billing and what i heard objecting to is not being able to explain my services or my conduct as mr ferris's attorney in those cases why i couldn't i was never offered the ability to do so i'll take a step back and saying that i believe what the drug court here is done in the nd trial is to take judicial notice of the dockets in those cases without the facts of the services being explored in any degree of specificity i did submit my billing information for those cases and generally testified to the work done but the questions that the judge raised the trial court in the nd trial sue a sponsor and through judicial notice regarding the docket i never had a chance to answer or address prior to the court issue me its decision so while the record was open and that's that's the particular concern i have there because i would if all of these services start go ahead well i was to say i think if all of the services are examined as the trial court and that were protection of case did the court in the small claims case we've seen that those services were quite appropriate yes there was some issue as to  the manner in which the emergency order of protection was sought but that i don't believe it anyway affected the outcome of the case and ultimately the judge had indicated that it was a situation where the  prove but not without merit when you took objection to the judicial notice from the judge you're right correct your honor ok well what aspect of that action by the trial judge violated guidance on where a court should take judicial note noticed sue was spotty and that's exactly what the court did here had no idea that the judge was going to consider those issues it did the judge did so without notifying whether a question or not and you cannot you can ask thank you note to have some input into that but i just i don't understand a violation or two a one if you're right i think that that is really the point here is that with regard to a one i think that we don't set aside still today the notions of fair play and due process was on room here quite quick crack and i agree that i did have the ability and i did go through that and ultimately the court did express that the motion to reconsider was granted  to that effect and that the court was no longer considering those matters essentially i disagree with the argument raised by the appellate easier that effectively the motion was granted back ultimately i think and then decided that the same result should apply despite not not analyzing the logical aspects of that which are to say if you remove the only reason for reducing the fees the fee should be reduced and i would slightly disagree with that your honor i had asked that the court would reconsider its ruling we didn't come on for a full d rehearing it was merely argument regarding the court's determent ation and ultimately what i was seeking is that the court would grant court was reconsidering its ruling it didn't it wasn't a new trial in any sense that i would typically expect to be putting on new evidence but rather making a legal arguments as to the judge's conclusions as set forth in fact reconsider and grant the reconsideration but rather tried to justify the same result without really pointing to any other existing facts that would that would call for a reduction in fees and that you know where a contract governs even if it's an attorney for the contract it should be held on the same level as other agreements parties and here we don't need to necessarily resort to analysis in order to determine whether the fees were reasonable still the fees must be reasonable because every contract has that explicit provision i believe that they were reasonable and that the fact that the apple he's failed to identify forth a reason that we now know was not considered as the only reason for reducing those fees it takes that back essentially at the reconsideration stage and then the end result is unchanged i think the bet is that is maybe not what's going on in other words if the judge was looking at this truly the way that was expressed in the original ruling which is to say had per year law p c not done these things in the order of protection cases that may be justified but because of these things done and those cases may reduce the fees and then said i'm not actually now considering those improper actions s it improper in the manner in which it was done here because it was done without notice or any adequate opportunity to explain those services when you have the chance to do it then you had over you were in front of the judge and you had a chance to do it correct yes and the judge indicated that that would no longer be considered and wasn't the reason at that point for the judges for the judges to decrease the fees where then she cited that it was only a gut reason i would argue only that with regard to the factors that the court should consider yes as the court can take an overall approach and doesn't need to go blind item by line item but in this case the judge should be able to point to one at least one of the factors that would justify reduction and i don't see that happening here the judge didn't identify any particular factor the rate i had done that detailed briefing i prepared a trial brief that is in the record here and in the case of comparable fees for d comparable cases around the state and also in the area none of that was ever called into question and none of the complexity of the cases that were called into question  brandy farris the christopher is the father that was previously represented by per your law that brought about that because ultimately resulted in this breach of contract cases for us judge and we have a brandy farris that is the mother and the cosigner on the contract at issue actually for helping me been able to hear thank you thank you if it may please the court i will keep my remarks to just a few short points and as a pulmonary you know at the end the day my clients were let off the hook at the trial level so there was no motion on my end directed at the court's methodology it was there is no cross cross appeal t record were ones from that st hearing back in two thousand and seventeen as noted in the divot that are in the record you will see several that say opie's you will see several that say divorce cases just if my math arithmetic is correct it least needed it that made it in there the opi total up to about two thousand four hundred and five dollars thirty one cents a page three however of the court's trial order is two thousand eight hundred and forty four dollars so assuming my math is accurate we have a bit of a discrepancy again i did see councils responsively suggesting otherwise indicating that it was  it missions but it doesn't seem to account for the differential here i also know as far as i could see i did not see any difference regarding their requests for reimbursement under illinois supreme court rule three hundred and seventy four you know these  and is noted in the case file there are several o p s with different cases and it seems as i look at  the way it was argued and the at least the exhibits that made in there that it seems that all the cast and a fall into one pot so i think a full and complete record would've been helpful in least trying to figure out which money went to where my nd point just briefly on the motion to reconsider you know i did argue that the position was not fully developed it seems that the issue might be how the court reacted to the requested prayer for relief but i don't think there was any argument as to what should or should be argued when a court grants something that's a little bit different from the press release so again i'd use the old deposition may have been forfeited my rd and final point which i think is worth knowing a little bit more detail about as regards to rule three hundred and seventy four as i already discussed it was not present with the divots that were submitted to the  be against public policy to bypassed that particular rule in my brief but kind of gave a very in artful example of of how the contract was drafted and how it could be directly interpreted  if my client's who did not to speak in the st appeal but if they had had been successful they may have still been on the hook under the contract to radically for reimbursement another example under public policy that kind of comes to mind just off the top of my head right now is that every so often as i read appellate reefs i will see very good lawyers with with fantastic cases that sometimes do things during the course of appeal that maybe they should not have done maybe didn't rise to the level of rule three hundred and seventy five but as i look at rule three study for it says that the prevailing party in certain circumstances can be in time for reimbursement upon a less good cause shown as to why not and i think that a contract for vision by an attorney who has a charge result be trying to take that authority or ability away from the court is a bit problematic and i think it is a bit of a slippery slope to say that a contract has that particular story i would say that a new slightly those attorney fees is abuse of discretion i kind of frame it as an arithmetic issue that no regional judge would ever come up with that particular number and because we have that record issue i think it is a bit problematic and i think cite to crawford city company versus j t gibbons case the united states supreme court case looking at the federal fees act which is not directly the same obviously the language is different but i think it's important for this rule is entitle or is intended to cover all cases in which there may or may not be a contract in existence but that similar to the federal fees act you know the court ordinarily wouldn't be able to shift those fees unless there was another statute or rule in existence that would allow it but the contract here says quite clearly that both parties are green that if if your lawyer covers or has costs and collection to include  in this case a pellet costs those will be similar and you may want to be clearer what your argument is because you may have clarified this new reply in your reply brief but and i think you seem at that point to greese that if the trial court and courts would if the if a if a court hypothetically finds as the trial court did that there is no death then you can't then even under that contract you can't recover either costs or or fees that you grew that i agree and i think it goes back to what i was indicating earlier and i know this wasn't necessarily addressed in the briefing but the idea that every attorney contract has it the concept of reasonable ness i think that's baked and i think that's and there's ample case law to support that whenever there's a fee issue you don't contract around that as an attorney that's unethical that's inappropriate and that's how we're seeking to do it unfortunate i don't understand why the response to my request for exhibits to be included in the record the clerk in this case submitted the exhibits for the st trial it did not appear to meet to be the case i did not recognize it until a briefing don't understand or i don't know at this point whether that would be appropriate given the stage of the appellate process that we are n but it would seem to me that given the similarity and the documents the contracts the billing records the briefing all of that is in the record and it would if changed since the st trial these are not seeking fees for the st ad trial not requesting attorney's fees for the collection process it would seem to me that everything that has been introduced is properly before the court and that supplementation if needed could still occur but that at this point the court should have all of the information that it needs i think want to stress that in this believe that it's fair to indict the work that per year law has daughter to criticize the work that part of law has done is a contract so forth the agreed value of all of that all those services if for all those reasons we believe that contract should that if i were asking this court this honorable court to shift those costs following the the original appeal really that would be improper at this point but what i was doing is in light of the fact that the matter was coming on for a trial adding that request to the already requested relief in light of the fact that those services were performed so i wasn't i wasn't following the priests procedure because i wasn't asking this honorable court to shift the costs rather