in situations where the subject matter of the contract is illegal or where they are barred by statute and use it in the illinois state bar association case as a matter of fact that contract is telling people why it was simply  decision to reject respondents attempts to distinguish actually distinguish the circumstances of our case from stevenson and you know the court it was within the court's discretion to to that the father's complaint was an authorized it was dismissed only as duplicative because the mother also filed a separate complaint in that case in the this case that's not true the complaint filed by the task in associates was simply amended to switch by allowing a period who is contemptuously delinquent to prosecute tort claim as next friend now that's pretty strong language i agree that it is strong language on the a however and this was time whether you know i'll be at it was unsuccessful of the type of the strongest argument was that when james came to attorney class b he said my ex wife and i both agreed that this suit needs to be filed conflict has been waived by you remit between the parents that one of them would prosecute this suit did he tell you or not not you personally but your firm when he came in and it by the way we have this agreement and to you know sign a contract on his own behalf but but i believe that you know if tara could sign a contract on his behalf she could also waive a cut waive a conflict on his behalf we you know james coming in signing the retainer agreement there were a strategic reasons for filing the complaint at the earliest possible moment relating to you know getting the getting injunctions to avoid the destruction of any  evidence there was a municipal defendant which you know obviously that's a one year statute of limitations there is there is the issue of getting discovery out to make sure there were no additional plans that no one knew about so that is suit was filed in response to the letter our first stop doing anything that would involve contacting witnesses or you know you're going out there and saying hey we represent this child however we do background work we did the it's for the court to determine what is the reasonable i did the lower court to determine what's the reasonable value of any work that we didn't this case we argued that it was valuable i believe existed based on decision that james could not bring the bring the lawsuit was made several weeks after a motion was filed by opposing counsel and it was it was made after a contested hearing and the court's  that are directly on point to this ferry issue in those cases the courts said no sanctions are warranted because despite you know being unsuccessful there was an objective like reasonable basis here and i think the dire since this child is almost ten and based upon the settlement there or resolution there may have been some injuries who's going to pay for that meantime i mean that's not set a circumstance as it exists here and so what you're doesn't an attorney still have some sort of than obligation to me to check these facts to make sure that when that complaint is something and he's not opening himself first find out for sanctions or discipline i believe he lawsuit runs them all down to the you know to the one phone line and attorney to comes in crosses the goal line it seems to me that the media when saying hey there's an intentional interference in some type of business relationship it might be a common law claim there might be an equitable staal claim there's a more wait a second in this circumstance is you can't cross the one phone line and then take the entire fee for this in this case that's not what happened in the lawsuit was filed i think fourteen or fifteen days after the injury on march eighteenth of two thousand and ten and to again modify the allegations of negligence and i can go on with the records this just so of course a bit of on your standing and this was a case where truth fell and the child was injured by end it reads it was brought to the to the to the court's attention at page thirteen of the oral argument record the question but as counsel has identified there was nobody who would you know i argument usually follows fact finding there was no fact finding by this particular transport correct correct correct your honor i would like to point out in terms of requirements for it acting is next friend of a child there is no requirement that a parent must have legal custody in order to act as as next friend of the child there is no requirement that he did that a parent must first be appointed guardian might be reasonable or prudent under these circumstances well under the circumstances and especially considering that james did come in saying you know this is what my my ex wife and i discussed this is what we're going to do that it was council says that a parent is not allowed to waive a conflict on behalf of a child and i don't see any authority saying that that's true in terms of being disqualified from bringing suit on behalf of the child that is a