to proceed good morning and may it please the court miriam's directly asked for the city of chicago its officials and the department of administrative hearing the illinois municipal code authorizes local government to have a system of administrative adjudication as a fast and cost effective way of resolving straightforward cases chicago set up its department of administrative hearings under this at the ready and handles more than a half million cases a year consistent with that purpose the department allows orchestrations like other respond to appear through labor representatives if they so choose but the appellate court invalidated that rule i'm a sweeping basis that all proceedings at the department involve a practice of law and health that corporations must be represented by counsel there in all cases even when the case involves a simple parking ticket laypeople in mind it's procedural rules are minimal and straightforward there is a presumption against discovery there are no juries very few motions are allowed and they are specified in the rule the issues that get resolved are largely factual whether the charge violation happened the respondent comes in and answers with facts such as what did the no parking sign say does that photograph show your overflowing dumpster and things of that nature proceedings at the department in other words do not typically call first national as legal skill beyond the knowledge of the average person if anything these proceedings are similar to and even less formal than small claims case as in the circuit court in which this court has long authorized corporations to appear through labor presented small claims or considered for a contract  meaning that those cases may involve legal questions of proximate cause ation contract interpretation and those would never arise at the department of minister hearing scuse me beyond that small claims cases are more likely to involve discovery motion practice motions to dismiss are allowed and even still this court has made the judgment call that the relative lack of complexity there and the low stakes involved  concern is not present at the department of ministry appearance for the same reason it's in a small claims case on the rules are quite simple just as they are in a small claims case and as i was saying the stakes are very similar to a small claims case the jurisdictional limit in a small claims case is ten thousand dollars and at the department of ministry administrative hearings approximately eighty three and of the cases with a finding of libel are less come in for judgments of less than ten thousand dollars and not just that the average judgement comes and i mirror four hundred fifty four dollars so it makes really no sense at all to have a different rule for small claims and the department of ministry of hearing it comes to attorney representation of corporations so we submit that this court should join the majority of states to have considered that question and hold that they representation of corporations by non attorneys in admit it ministry of proceedings department proceeding it is always free to do so the department does not have a rule mandating that corporations not bring attorneys of course we the point of this case is to preserve the option of labor representation for  corporation when the corporation concludes it's not in its business interests to do so for example if the preparations driver were to get a fifty dollars parking ticket and it simply does not pay to get an attorney to do so we simply are about as simple as they come and retroactive application last of this seriously and that the full liability could be imposed on people who have been representing corporations without knowing that they have a question of change that in the factual situation here there's concern that anyone could come in and say that he or she was representing the corporation without the corporations knowledge in fact that person could come in and representation under of under penalty of law that you are doing authorized to act for the corporation and here the circuit court held that mr johnson had apparent authority stonestreet actually never challenged out ruling it was a clear ruling  and how could it really have challenge that because mr johnson came in with a picture of stone street's carbon monoxide detector after having been charged with not having one and he also had a pick work order signed by mr lacks some authority viz a viz stonestreet it rolled on the basis that it that i simply you know filing the appearance and presenting these pieces of evidence mr johnson was practicing law so we've gone so somebody did just walk in off the street and you know i don't think the corporation would be without a memory i first of all i don't know if that would how often that would happen but if it was somebody affiliated somehow with the corporation maybe disgruntled employee or something like that corporation might have a remedy against that person but certainly the department could fairly rely on the representation and there's a lot of cases that come through there they could rely on the appearance that's why it's made under oath and the hearing officers excuse me are now instructed to you know  representative who was there whether they are authorized and you know finally beyond that if if the corporation could establish some kind of fraud on the agency you know down the road maybe there could be some you know action to vacate for lack of jurisdiction is void you know for fraud on the court or something like that so i don't think the corporation would ultimately be without a remedy of that extraordinary situation you know caretaker keith johnson with no legal training was simply a caretaker showed up at the department of administrative hearings we don't know everything what occurred at the hearing and it's not  although our way through goodman the rock all the way up to downtown disposal if the service involves any type of legal skill or knowledge that is a how i would not a green with your position in this case when we be setting out a blanket rule that corporations must be represented by attorneys in administrative procedures that tepper rule may be proper but i don't think i corporation at the prohibition against something of the tourney corporation act that did involve the practice law mr johnson what we're not saying is i don't think the court needs to go further other than saying in this heat he's keith johnson by peering at a contested administrative hearing and offering evidence and we don't know if you put out any witnesses we don't know if you cross examine the witnesses we don't know what else you may have done at the hearing ok so tell me how we need taylor that that that the decision would not be taken as us indicating that you have to be an attorney and representing someone or ministry to proceed i think that would be appropriate and i'll phrase bratislava we i think you know the court wanted to go further obviously you meant you would the only screwed court wants to do but i think in a lot of ways the city is asking for in some respects an advisory opinion i guess i'm i'm i'm having difficulty separating the fact that this you know we talk about downtown disposal i'm not sure that's on point because the case involved in an attorney filing a complaint in the circuit court now we have a million cases and i think these eighty six percent of the cases under ten thousand but that makes over fourteen percent of the history of hearings over fifty thousand or over ten thousand dollars the in cities like to point out the small claims rule but the difference in the small claims rule is that is by the rule making authority of this court corporation the circuit court doesn't suppose we have to look at the different factors we contend that the that decision should be void but i think in this case we don't need to get there is what happened in this case of public order that stones fruit was never properly served either an officer tractor and i believe the rule has terms supervised if you look at the city's rule that represent anybody individuals and offices has behaved for the problem of the city's rules might have been in the record it had everything it needed to argue this case and cites case and as i understood the argument that i'm counsel was making that this court said somehow to limit its decision based only practice of law it was not that was that was the ruling gloated if so that should be vacated certainly also if what mr johnson did is the practice of law that everything is because he really the record shows which comparison of the jurisdictional limits between the department and the small claims court it's true that small claims has a jurisdictional limit of fifty thousand i'm sorry that the department sees me as a jurisdiction of fifty thousand dollars practically speaking as we cite in our brief cases eighty seven percent of the cases come in under ten thousand dollars where there's a liability finding with the average being four hundred fifty four dollars if a party is concerned about a higher finding where there's perhaps eleven consolidated cases one case that the appellate court relied on or more violations they can always get an attorney we want to emphasize that that's always an option this is to preserve the option of lay representation for simple low stakes cases that's part of the r making option that counsel was stressing and we have a case here where the appellate court made a very broad sweeping ruling holding that the unauthorized practice of lockers at the department of administrative hearings in every case at the department of administrative hearings we submit this court as well judicial power to reverse that ruling without the need for special rule making  points counsel did propose that all judgments might be void now that were entered at the department of mistreated hearing without lawyers for corporation no doubt because don't street has filed a class action lawsuit against the city which is state now pending this case asking for that making that very claim and we of course disagree with that and we don't think you know where it's really even would support that but the we do see the minute our brief that all the factors for prospective relief would be met in this case and we rest on our briefing and from that point