million dollars but plaintive once on top of that another eighteen to twenty one million dollars in statutory interest in attorney's fees which he said is owed to him and to be only securities law he's seeking this additional eighteen to twenty one million dollars and statutory damages by ripping out of the almost securities law only those payments provisions that favor him and ignoring the fact that those pay in which is are specifically linked to a write in that law by the securities violator to stop interest and attorney's fees from accruing by rescinding investment transaction and returning the money these elderly security law wards extraordinary damages include a guaranteed return twice that of the general interest rate in all nori and attorney's fees to encourage security offenders to rescind swiftly but a lawyer defendant in a legal malpractise case has no right to rescind under the securities law in question plaintiffs would have the damages continue to mount against the lawyer before it's even determined whether or not there are actual damages due to the legal malpractise in short these compensatory interests damages and attorneys fees cannot be transferred to a legal malpractise setting because there statutory purpose is which this court found those compensatory damages to be punitive in nature however one may categorize or describe these augmented damages when they're used to encourage re context plaintiffs would violate this court's precedent in eastman vs messner which limits damages in the malpractise case to only those damages that the plaintiff would have been entitle to at the malpractise not of her but because under the s l the securities violator could have rescinded the transaction to stop the statutory interest in attorney's fees from running and here the lawyer can not plaintiff is not entitled to these damages to apply it would be fundamentally unfair and cannot be what the general assembly intended in looking at the only securities law compensatory your honor several things first of all i believe it's compensatory as it relates to the person who violate the securities act in this case share something because it sends a transaction allows the person to get ten percent interest or what provided the documents and attorney's fees but when you try to transfer that to a legal malpractise defended it simply does not work because the legal malpractise defendant did not  in fact there's ten pages of definitions and the only securities law saying who would applies to what circumstances it is applied and when it gets the damages it winks at it pairs it with the right to rescind the transaction and the attorney's fees stop and the interest stops and because this court is often held in construing the statute where it is the common law which in this case it is because it provides for statutory interest and provides for a shifting of attorney's fees the court must give the statute it's plain in the ordinary meaning and in context and that's often the case when the plaintiffs brings a lawsuit against someone else that they're not entitled to interest on the money they invest of the lessers the statute that's involved and they're not entitled to attorney's fees because the american rule so of the purchaser to an ass in need of the transaction because looking at the plane in the ordinary text of the statute it simply would not apply and in this case just by way of background so he made a mistake we're not here to contest that but the question is when you compare his mistake to the allegations of fraud that were proven in the underlying case within the legal malpractise case against shearson why should my client be given less rights why should we apply a statute that does not apply to lawyers by the face of the statute but we would say the securit these take time because until there is actual damages there's no there's no great legal malpractise claim this case took twenty two years to get here they tried case which this court ruled upon took twenty five years so meanwhile if you apply this ira cell provision to a lawyer the interest is going to far surpass in time the actual damages and the lawyer cannot do anything about it if you apply that i a self is there any amount of interest that would be against the lawyer in the ma are saying are you saying that provision should know by now certainly there would be no provision under the eye of the question would be whether there would be any interest that could be given to them based upon some other stature to some other provision there might be something in the documents that would apply so there if there was there is in this case interest could be awarded you all know there can be pre chosen interests in certain equitable matters neither of those circumstances apply here repeatedly affirm verdicts where plaintiffs have not been entitled to attorney's fees because they haven't shifted it get the court still found they were made whole this court has approved and affirmed verdict where there's not been the interest war because there was no statute the contract provided to get the court found the point was still made whole so that that is a somewhat new and nuanced concept in this case i would argue it does not apply particularly here where it's and that gets me to this court's decision and tried and tried gee there's two points i want to make with respect to that case first of all this court held that the plaintiffs was not entitled to post judgment interest under two thirteen zero two because the very face of the set is so there's only applied to judgments not hypothetical judgments in play this or arguing in that case the judge would have been  therefore until the legal malpractise case is decided i get interest running from that and this court rise really held the statute doesn't apply admittedly if there had not been mt practice he probably would have gotten that interest but because a really common law legal malpractise setting and because we're talking about statutory damages this court held that the statute by its terms has to apply and it did not and this court also said humanity damages against the legal malpractise defendant could not be applied now we're not we're arguing here that to apply this interest and to apply these attorneys fees on the non going basis laurier it becomes punitive are aggravated damages which is what is contained in two eleven fifteen in part by the legislature so for bat reason also we believe concerned as this court was and tried to eat but if you allow this unlimited amount of damages to continue to mount that the impact it may have on premiums for lawyers and awards to be willing to take these types of cases would have a grave effect this is exactly the reasoning that this court pointed out in his opinion and tried to they express the same concerns so the ice cream t b a just to make this up out of thin air is the p of the plaintive was concerned because if you were to interpret this is common law punitive damages then their concern is it would not be mandatory you could be discretionary we are not making that ar we are simply saying that to apply it in this context is aggravated or punitive damages this court held in the manner health care case the harris first man or health care case but in the context of travel compensatory damages even though there are designated as compensatory it can be punitive in the fact when you applied that to a situation where there in that case also in applying those damages in it is unfair to the warriors to apply a securities law that does not apply to them and were they cannot take advantage of the very statutory framework of that law which would allow them to rescind so we believe that a lawyer should not be required to sit helplessly by for twenty two years this case was filed in one nine hundred ninety three and sha when the harm occurred because under this court's decision in eastman it says the plaintiff has the burden to prove actual damages so the plaintiff would have to show when they could have or taint a judgment under the  settlement under the i a cell and then that would be the date in which interests would run to play to fail to do that in fact their expert said that the i s o claim would have been decided quicker than the nine i sell counts that were decided in two thousand and seven but he didn't say when in try gee at least the point he came up with the date for this court to determine whether or not post jasmyn interest should run from a particular da of the settlement we would submit that the interest only runs on the amount of actual damages due to the malpractise which is one point three million and the reason we say that is they obtained three point two million dollars in two thousand and seven from that original four point five investment as a result of being able to pursue their non cell counts that's why judge burke later in two thousand eleven in a judgment for actual damages due to the legal malpractise of one point three that is the only him out that interest should run on and it should only run on the one point three through two thousand and seven it should not extend beyond that point to the legal malpractise if you apply the i s l it's only when they would have received their full recovery and that would have been two thousand and seven so interested only run up until that point plaintiffs argue that the interest should run on the entire amount and that that amount should continue even through today despite the fact that they've had three point two million dollars in their possession said in this case it would be in a certain result because it would be a windfall to the plate is to have the possession of three point two million since two thousand and seven and then yet continue to get interest on it as if they didn't receive it so he did not read the statute literally like the majority opinion did he said you have to read some common sense into it and you should not have an absurd application there's no further questions  failed in that regard by intentionally for some inexplicable reason giving up the eye itself claim which has been proven to be the best and only remedy available to the g so they can be made whole they claim one of the only securities law gives the gold fines rescission the money they invested in this europe it gives them compensatory interest to reimburse them for the money they didn't pocket and it gives them the cost they incur in pursuing that claim according to the secretary of state according to others that statute is remedial in nature the intent was to make the defrauded victim whole so when that statue was taken away from the go mines they want to very difficult position i s l they're totally different and they do more importantly they're extremely difficult and expensive things to pursue but only somebody who is prepared to advance that mr go find it over a million dollars in costs for rescission damage in two thousand the seven or two thousand and eight and issues an elected to pay it back and they would pay four point five million dollars they would pay interest from the date that stock was purchased till date of payment no percent you're entitled to and if we can't agree on the legal fees wes ask the judge who has the case to have a hearing on legal fees then the matter is over but also could've walked in and said look we'll take over these great cases that we preserve for you we'll pay you to get out of our malpractise claims and will take over the really great consumer fraud case and the case against the accountants in that and the time of the parties they didn't do that mr joyce is there he's a lawyer that's all are asking for here you know this firm committed malpractise and then developed a flawed theory of defense they're fearing a defense was less threat more goldfine spend a lot of money on a difficult case and we hope he loses and we hope in losing the case the jury concludes his reliance wasn't reasonable if that would have happened then there's no i because that's one of the elements that is in common with these difficult cases that's the only element in common so their spare strategy here was to sit back and watch more to spend a great deal of money on these cases and hoping more so because there was no reasonable reliance when that didn't happen to blow up in their face and then they had to scramble to put together a defense put together a trial and they didn't prevail before a judge would get on those issues now wanted to intervene so they could listen to this settlement negotiations they specifically said we don't want to pay one penny we just want to listen and with it but the judge burke's attention he said we  can't intervene to listen if you want participate participate then we said in our opening brief that we asked them on numerous occasions to participate in the global settlement and they always refused because they had this failed the goal find them lose that extremely difficult december fraud case may be bailed out it was a high risk period now these people are no they're not little old ladies they are professional securities and voyeurs they knew exactly what they were doing they knew when they gave up the s l claim and if they were sued for malpractise they knew the consequences they knew they'd be they asked and insisted that we agreed to enter in order to put the now back to scase on an indefinite stay in that case not proceed until we finish our litigation again and why was your client made whole at the time of the settlement in two thousand sign so that interest would and then and the second piece of that course is why if that if interest is to continue running or three point two million dollars is the goal face would not have the use of that money for twenty years in the statute requires for them to be made whole they get the use of that money now the question you ask really is a question that bothered both of they have for a while under statute yes is that something legislature or new yes is that unfair and reasonable i don't think that's a test under that strict construction why w you make the calculation of that ten percent from the date of purchase until that date rescission is paid then you have the legal fees and you add the boss and then you get out at that point in time  but why would we get a three point two million dollar offset the gold mines filed that case to mitigate their damages the loss pretty clear in illinois that in the injured client of a negligent lawyer who spends money to mitigate the damages is entitle to be or get that money back here you can either add the one point six million they spent for the damages or you can reduce the three point two to one point six i would suggest reducing the three point two one point six is a better remedy because if it's the language or the status that it says you reduce what they got what they got was one point six so i hope i answered your question damages it's possible they would have received a better remedy then the remedy under the eye of selling it dept going no damages no no no practice their own way or who was called a trial very experienced litigator of securities cases said two things one the sum result was excellent and two you don't get kind of damages in these cases if you've been trying his case or for forty years he's always asked for it she's about a lawyer cannot be responsible for causing his client to lose a statutory remedy unless the statute says a lawyer is liable it is unbelievable i'm surprised they had they could sit there make that argument there's not a statute anywhere i've ever seen anywhere we looked far and wide that says oh by the way if your lawyer makes a mistake he was the benefit of the statute your lawyer can be sued for malpracti it's it's unbelievable that they take that position that i want to get to a couple of the arguments that they made for example start with the goal fines actual loss was one point three million dollars the phrase actually lost sounds great try and find a statute that defines it try to find a case that defines it try and find some here in this case where it was defined actual law says that this is a would be made up to support the notion that the actual loss of one point three million dollars dollar court we submit with the exception of the offset the offset should have been reduced there's just no basis for the notion that the loss was one point three million dollars in all those cases there was never a finding of the court in all those cases that they could have nothing to do with the outcome of the case it was just a word they used for whatever reason is for stopping the with the damages we wrote to pointed out they could have participated in a settlement they could've tendered money the notion that we've caused them to sit there for twenty two years this is ridiculous they're the ones who wanted to wait until i'm sure some was resolved they impose that on us good pain in order to that effect and they have to suffer the consequence of a district joyce could you back for legal malpractise until the sure some case was totally resolved and we agreed now maybe impose was a license i took but that wasn't something we look for it was something we consent the order put the negotiations that's also discussed in our brief is it in the record i can assure that i'm sorry i can't answer that maybe maybe the follow up question mr joyce's as the order reflected it's by agreement yes or absolutely without a doubt it's an agreed order thank you  court just addressed that issue in the everson insurance case just this last year you must have actual damages into the lawsuit went forward with shearson there was no determination of whether or not  any damages in fact their expert testified in their trial that they were seeking sixteen to eighteen million dollars based upon the nine i sell counts if they had recovered sixteen to eighteen million dollars we wouldn't be here today because there would have been no recovery from the lawyers they can't have a double recovery so we were entitled to wait and see what happened that case took a long time was finally resolved  statutory damages in that case they were seeking interests from a hypothetical post a judge when in this court said although normally they might have been made well by that you can't apply a statute out of context rod the difficulty we're having in determining when the interest stops is if the i s l doesn't address anything that relates to lawyers it just says one shares and pace it stops but what happens in the circumstances where first thomas you were asking about the right to rescind if you look at thirteen eight which is the provision that provides for these damages is linked to the right to rescind a lawyer here cannot rescind mr joyce says well they could have sat a while until we knew what the actual damages war which was two thousand and seven at that point there was a determination of actual damages isn't a term that we made up that's what justice burke said was going on in two thousand and eleven when he entered that order the actual damages were one point three and then he applied interest on only the one point three tried she says that where you have statutory damages in the legal malpractise case the statute by its very terms must apply and in this case it doesn't make sense to apply and if you apply even we have never said that these are common law it damages the secretary of state's if you read it carefully which i know this court will it doesn't say one word about lawyers it says that they didn't want as it relates to security violators for this court to hold it's punitive because that it might become discretionary they held it's compensatory as a security violators not as two warriors because lawyers don't have the right under that statute to stop the interest in the attorney's fees from running which is a huge shift the american rule says that we all pay our own attorneys fees which goes to the cross appeal statute if i'm sure something i want to stop everything and i say ok i'll give you your money back then if the plaintiff refuses and goes on with their lawsuit the interest stops at that point within fifteen days of given the election the attorney's fees stop we did not have the right to stop and that's why under this court's logic in tried to or a majority of th exception in two different sources and we're asking them to do the same thing in this case so respectfully we asked this court to of florida the one point three million dollars in actual legal malpracti damages he's already received three point two and then he will have returned to him the full amount of his investment when he invested in the speculative stocks i think