attorney teeth into temperature counsel thirteen before that motion could be heard were decided however they reached a settlement on the merits of the underlying litigation pursuant to which an agreed final judgment worker was entered which provided for the payment of five hundred fifty thousand dollars in attorney's fees specifically providing that this was in full satisfaction of attorney's fees but it says pursuant to nine hundred eighty eight and i gather there extra expenses and the like had been put to one side and so then we get the grady order awarding those sanctions in the book award or figuring out the amount of money so isn't a record at least unclear as to whether that five fifty was supposed to encompass the nine hundred twenty seven shoes there's nothing to bet i'm aware of in the record that would indicate that those fees pertain to any different activities different attorney's fees it's for the same activities by the county by plaintiff's counsel to generate those fees so it seems to me that without some indication that that five hundred fifty thousand dollars mean it's not the record i might have wished for but it seems to me there are some indications record and you have agree with you if it's purely compensatory then it can only be compensated once so just to that effect to that extent i think you make a perfectly valid that their agreement intended to exclude these other fees in some way or form there's nothing actually in the record that shows that the final judgment order itself simply says in full satisfaction of the reasonable attorneys fees easy way to get rid of the whole case if if they'd already been covered she says no judge brady knew all about this separate prior to the entry and final judgment when the plaintiffs in the city of chicago had reached at least in principle an agreement on a settlement and had not yet resolved the issues of attorney's fees yes there was a hearing at which judge grady said let's put that all to the site for now figure out attorney fees and come back when they came back with their agreed final judgment th great final judgment said nothing more then this covers all the fees that it didn't say this covers all the fees except for those fees incurred as a result of allegedly i'm reasonable office paid back but if the district court didn't have jurisdiction because those had already been paid then the sanction order itself the order that in fact affects his mccollum's or potations interest should never have been entered but i don't see a jurisdiction problem with it it's you know that there could be a mistake if it was double recovered but that's not jurisdiction district courts have jurisdiction to entertain one hundred twenty seven motions in ruhleben motions and other motions that arise out of the conduct of litigation that was otherwise appropriately before them and so just for court itself had jurisdiction whether we have appellate jurisdiction whether the financial thing is entirely moved or whether we had instead need to look at your obviously ms mccollum had no way to prevent the state's attorney from from doing that that they did that right to you know be done with the case from their perspective but she had a right as well to proceed with her appeal and to be some sort of concrete a sanction order or a an affirmative order finding misconduct on the part of the attorney but we have that here we have an order specifically finding sanctionable conduct she's not seeking to appeal from merely a finding she's seeking to appeal a specific order which is of course a final once every all the remaining issues in the case to resolve the bolt case was interesting question there was no double recovery when disagreement was crafted it was specifically done to exclude the sanctions motion that was then pending what evidence do we have in the record that we can actually you may remember that i'm not questioning your word that we need evidence of that well i think that in terms of what we would look at and look at the agreed the judgment order itself and in the judgment over itself it says that the parties have resolved the issue of attorney speech with respect to any that might be isn't it just a discovery dispute well because the it is a discovery dispute but there were a lot of excessive fees that were incurred because of the state attorney's misconduct in the case and so the city did not agree to pay for those excessive fees under section eight they only have to pay for the you know reasonable costs of litigation excessive costs caused by other parties don't necessarily fall under that and are there filings that would give us a hint at this or is this just all private settlement discussions yes it's private settlement discussions we attempted to raise some of the private settlement discussions in reply with judge talk though she referenced and she said she would consider in her order because in the the only chance we had to actually raise these issues was when in their response to our petition for the access judge i don't get that but i think that's what because if you if this kind of judicial public you know order public order so why shouldn't she why should that be enough injury to confer jurisdiction well because i think that under article three there is no case or controversy with the i don't understand the kind of fear if you if you have been severely reprimanded by a judge that's that's something aren't you absolutely at it but it but it's and you well are you saying that if that if she if she says that he that it that it was an inaccurate  i'm sorry i don't understand the court's question if it was an inaccurate well if if if she is severely reprimanded and she believes that it's  dispute is not with the parties who are part of the case for dispute with the language used by the district court to try my crew was all sorts of appeals that are in this ancillary area whether it's a lawyer being held in contempt or whether it's you know a little le issue oftentimes the part of the underlying dispute of the parties is really off there in the side and what the court is trying to figure out are things that actually pertain to what the court's doing its own business but if the court overreacted and and a monetary injury if the court were to if the court were to find the judge grady abused his discretion and sanctioning the respondent the plaintiffs in this case have no real interest in the outcome of that so it's one thing to say she has an injury i agree she has a serious injury it's nothing to say who should be defending that appeal and i don't think of the plaintiffs in this case you're in a funny position is essentially what you're saying that it's not something you have a huge stain we don't want to be here we filed a motion to dismiss this appeal because the reality is just the same she was only thirty five thousand dollars continuing to litigate this is frankly eating the house so it's not a financial there's no financial incentive for my client to get new they certainly weren't paying heed to the case in the first place on an hourly basis and so why should we be here defending judge grady's order against a specific attorney they put the state's attorney's office pages i don't think you have to know i don't think you have to defend the order necessarily but she needs to have some way of eting and there is a proceeding and of course the city is as a party and this issue has arisen so and she's heard and she appeals and you could you could defend judge grady if you thought this was a good thing you could side with her because after all it's you know it reflects badly on the city that she's  with it there was this issue this collateral issue of what about the seven months of litigation that was caused by the state's attorney's office making false representations to judge grady and us about this but so you and you said you think her only remedy is to file and there's i think so if we're not just court files that it should that should be her only remedy if there was a monetary change and still in existence that wasn't mooted by the payment of it then there'd be a different issue and you're saying this because of the clark decision right i mean by you know some artificial because you say if there was a if there was a if there was some money if she had some money in this then she'd appeal and you defend it try to save your money i don't see why that should require a higher standard of of proof for i don't know about i don't know if it should require a higher standard not but as far as it being an adversarial contest between two why should a non party's lawyer be allowed to perpetuate litigation indefinitely when the parties themselves have actually resolved it they shouldn't be allowed to they should they there's no article three controversy i think that's a good argument but my concern is were complaining about a fine while i think that's the thing that really you just have no interest in that it's the only thing i would say to that is it and i don't think there's any material interest but is that in this case i would say that whatever standard you evaluate the conduct under that same sions were appropriate so that what the sanctions were appropriately awarded against the respondent based on what happened to the district court so i'm fine i can't hear you excuse me that sanctions were appropriate awarded in the district court by whatever standard you evaluated under if it's a lower standard or i or standard it doesn't make any difference because there were false statements repeatedly made throughout the course of seven months so in fact you'd be happy to you'd be happy to appear  to do that i really had this fight with the city she is part of the city she's part of the state attorney's office pardon she said she's with the state's attorney's office she was not part of the city writes a separate office a separate entity altogether she was with the prosecutor's office and that was one of the big objections we had was is they shouldn't have had any interest in hiding this file or not telling the truth and if they had ever come forward and simply said there should be a file it's been misplaced and we can't find it that probably would have ended everything but they didn't do that they kept saying she but she heard the i will try to be brief if the supreme court's precedent has made clear that to have a case of controversy you don't need a big enormous yes but but  the plate and has shown that he's willing and able to vigorously stand as an adversary and i think that question points to why clarke is actually a double edged sword in this case if in fact the attorney fees are the only interest that the plaint the section one hundred twenty seven sections and then there was no case in controversy once the very final judgement was ordered very briefly in terms of the merits of the actual sanctions of counsel has argued that that even if you know everything is jurisdictionally appropriate that sanctions were were properly entered council has actually not disputed that ms mccollum didn't receive noticed as to at least two of the basis upon which judge plaintiffs in this case well originally yes because there was money on the table and it would have gone to the plaintiffs now that the money is off the table because the joint several liability in the payment she's in the position where it's really the district judges assessment that she's challenging because of the reputational effects and it's almost one of those in re district court kinds of things were somebody has to defend the district judges evaluation somebody who still cares maybe  the just records evaluation of the behavior i thought i appreciate that point and i don't the only thing i could say in response is that again i believe that once they agree final judgement provided full satisfaction of the attorney's fees monetary portion was off the table so either it was unnecessary to the district court's jurisdiction and is unnecessary to jurisdiction here or at the defeats the jurisdiction of both courts and the district court's decisions that should be