discretion when it ignored the teachings of this court in the johnson case and how to handle a claim of an attorney for it retaining the court recognized that johnson was the controlling authority it discussed it it made some findings and then at the end of the day it said exactly what this court has said in johnson should not happen if i found that while there was a definite need for the files and were not here appealing that portion that despite the fact that the amount it assumed was correct of sixty thousand dollars owed feelings and it found or assume that chicago import could post security of that i'm out the court said that i find that the necessity to have these files outweighed even the ability to post security johnson says that's wrong johnson clearly says that the courts determination is based on two factors and these two factors have to be proven by and that wall rosen in this case but by chicago import aid the need for the files and b they don't have the ability to post security while they might have been made the first finding because the court held that way we're not arguing about that they certainly didn't make the second finding or prove the second find in the court and the court didn't accept their arguments that they didn't have in fact that said i don't have much on this so that i hold that against chicago import the children with relief are you asking this court i'm asking for exactly the relief that we ask for it out there is that they be required to post a secure security in the amount of sixty thousand dollars and what if they don't well we can't get our files back there's no doubt about that but i believe the church of scientology case says even when things are they're not moot because some relief to be crafted so but so what's what's the alternative what if we issue an order and it's not complied with what's the consequence i would say that they would be a contempt of this court's order and then whatever this court or the district court if it's goes back to review in that way would say would would be how they could purge the contempt you know the district court found that they had the ability to post the that was actually what the result mucky goldstar was which was the district court case probably twenty years the side of before johnson where they said the district judge said you have to turn over the files but it's conditioned and posting security which is what we asked for here and then he referenced the i don't have it here on the right now he reference under the guidance of a way it was posted in an in the standard the johnson says is it has to be an amount to secure the lien so sixty thousand i would disagree with ten percent that's just a criminal if you go to if you go to just the general civil rule if you have to post the super c d s on appeal it's at least the amount of the judgment and maybe one and a half times i'm not advocating a one and a half times if if that's the standard that this court thinks is appropriate based i'd super c d s that would be the standard but in civil cases bonds are always the amount of the judgment both here and in illinois so i think that would be a guy post question outside of that the the record you know that there's this whole issue of testing what was actually that's correct and the district district court in the first instance to decide how much he actually is old he didn't do that the first time you just assume but it's for him to decide that that's a hearing but the record before you right now the district court said i assume the sixty thousand is oh so disregard have to make that determination or can he leave you to go to state court well johnson says he can he can get my question must he must know i don't think he must if you all filed suit in state court we have various proceedings at state court that are involving some of the other cases that not on this  case i don't know the status of all of them i'm not the attorney in the office handling them but it's my understanding that none of them really are going to say how much is a we have not been a plaintiff if that's your question we've got sued for attorneys counter retaining lien that's pending in state court in the other cases it as the as the record shows we represent in chicago import and maybe five or six other civil cases but we have not filed for attorneys they have filed collection proceedings to collect the very same attorney's fees that they're seeking to put a halt basically have us post bond on or push the security out there already seeking those fees they were mr shulman is referencing is there were various other cases in which the firm refused to turn over the files and we had to file motions for eternal over in the state court cases and eventually they'll stay court judges ruled that what we ended up doing is we paid whatever was owed in that particular case as a condition for getting that file but as far as the sixty thousand dollars goes and i'm going to give mr shulman the benefit of the doubt because he's not a part of that he didn't file that those are the subject of state court collection actions as far as the argument about johnson versus cherry if you take a look at the johnson case in the case case or retaining lane isn't far from absolute is what the district judge said here and he's absolutely correct it's far from absolute you take a look at these various seven factors and you balance the equities of every one you you look at the interests of the attorney you look at the interest of the client the interest of the courts and the interest of the other party to the proceeding as well and you put those into the mix and you come up with whether the court may impose this retaining lee which is not an absolute thing the court ma indiscretion impose it or may not impose it on in the case of johnson versus cherry the district court didn't look at any factors whatsoever it just completely ignored the lead and on appeal all this court security that the inquiry ends and that's it and you have to impose a retaining like that that was never of the opinion and johnson johnson only remanded it down to mr clarke to take a look at the lucky goldstar factors which is exactly what did in this case in his opinion which we have the transcript here he went through those factors and he found that at the end of the day the most important factor weighed heaviest as far as giving the file to the client and that was the position of the case that when we came into the case and asked for the for the file the case of discovery was close the case was rated such dispositive motions and ready to to have a are you guys getting paid well you know your honor we've been paid we've been paid something on this case yes time i don't think it'll take that one first of all iraq is correct the attorney in our office is sitting here and he has informed me as i said i was not the one here only that we do have  cases in state court seeking to collect the fees so i stand corrected and i apologize for that is this the other the other matters are the question of the lucky gold star which again has been argued here as opposed to johnson johnson is this court case lucky go stars a district court case it johnson which i read this morning and i have one one observation when they when you this court decided lucking decided johnson it didn't even mention lucky goldstar it has its own formula for what the district court should look at in deciding whether to turn over the files which again we do not object to we have an appeal that part we've only peel the security part and when and i'm just going to read it from johnson for example johnson his  the documents in her file nor has she presented evidence that she lacks the means to post adequate security she may well be able to do both showings but until she does the district court may not simply disregard the retaining lien client has asserted that was what johnson said that's what happens here and that is why we are asking you to reverse and or remain on this to the district court to make the