second issue is a little bit more nuanced it is whether a dismissal of one action under seven thirty five six one nine eighty three the there is another action pending cases operates this rescue second district that is now an adjudication on the merits as well as to the counter fighting because the second district as well as the first district holds that a fee petition and a legal no practice against their former client for fees that are owed the client then must come forward with the legal malpractise claim if the client fails to do that and subsequently there is a resolution divorce courts interpretation in kane county the resolution of the d j s was in cook county when there was a dismissal because there were two actions pending so under that logic when the divorce court says that m because that was a mandatory how to hide the failure to file their does not stop it from being a resolution of that issue now we alternately disagree or with became county course determination that the cook county case here we have the circuit court's order from cook county and we see that it is not considering the merits of this tonight he will speak to if it is simply considering whether there are two actions pending at the same time between the same parties case there can be two actions pending and when one case is dismissed the other action then goes fall the whole policy reasons behind supreme court rule two seventy three is to ensure that you don't have multiple actions pending at the same time such that potentially one for could come down one way in the other or we come down the other way and there would be no way to ratify the two decisions based furthe with the discussion here today that that is a mandatory comment line it makes no difference whether it is a dispute as to additional fees owed or a dispute as to whether money pay should be refunded or it is in this case as miss people with regard to the two seventy three sorry supreme court rule two seventy three issue of in this case either is just a man can a collaboration and it does result in a possibly be said for the change how i actually was that he was in a state of mutual purgatory nobody had done anything with it wow i can't answer that your honor i don't know from the record as to what occurred i think the best that we can possibly speculate as to is that there is a crew trial settling conference on november second of two thousand saga the attorneys for just a module were to return on nov ninth two thousand and seven to paradox that occurs if we take that order and translate that into major cation on the merits and that is because if we are going to say that a case is presently pending we cannot also say that  dismissing one action under six one one three six one ninety three is in education on the merits and action cannot be both pending and resolved at the same time and i think that shows the real purpose behind  rule two seventy three and that is to avoid a consistent resolves i think the best case that illustrates this principle is hoff which is a case from this district there the court convening he had  cases that were consolidated that were arguably between the same parties and involving the same sphere now the plaintiff disputed that characterization but the court all need to turn in that appeal to dash proceedings if we were to apply the divorce courts reasoning in this case there would have been nothing left for this court to remain and upon a finding that one of those appeals involved the same matter between  that is resolved it's a situation where we are looking at an order from a second that doesn't set a future date and the question is is this appeal this is fine if we don't appeal is the approaches that could resolve should there be an argument inserted saying well that resolved i agree and in this certainly in this instance there would have been prejudice if there had not been a notice of appeal the argument could be a of excess of three years and that's why there was a belief that the appropriate place to go and maybe wasn't the exclusive appropriate place to go was cook county which was the jurisdiction selected in the retainer agreement in cook county there were certainly options as to the king county cases while the motion to dismiss certainly could have been filed or a motion to voluntarily dismiss what was pending in king county certainly could have been filed i don't know that necessarily would result in th multiple readings to seems to be in this case at least have served result therefore i would ask this court to reverse the divorce courts may second two thousand and twelve such as this is not a situation in which there rules intended to do to lead to results like them or do we just give them we set aside the purpose of the rules and we just a ploy strictly i think i think part of this rule is no reason to believe the deal there is no reason to force a judgment and they have been right there wasn't done the italo never asked for them i don't think it was incumbent on us to ask for that we have now we have your position is this bill should be dismissed that you could go away ask for relief in king county for your card my position is that i'm not sure that this court should be listening to this this argument because recipe to cut in that case but they state the often recognised proposition that it doesn't matter what you actually disorder it was you could have asserted and that's why when we come back to the issue of the being mandatory nature of needing to bring legal no practice case in a fee dispute case that you can't dispose of one without a disposing of the other as a result of it could have been brought in that action when counsel talks about two bites at the apple i'm reminded of of assailing expression that there's water water everywhere but not a drop to drink there's been an action in cook and there's been a nation necessarily has to be an adjudication on the speaker's counter and it's it's difficult to say that i as a potential talent need to walk into the divorce court and say i disagree with your reasoning but here is my whole thing to dismiss asked anybody to do that nobody asked you to overeat to do that the problem that would arise by that is is i would potentially be taking the position in litigation and receiving about it by it and then i might be judicially a stop trying in recess thank you