and the we would like to follow this framework that the law offices of chess i will proceed first and have fifteen minutes dealing just with the subject matter of the appeal of the tussock appeal then the sullivans will be allowed a total of twenty five minute firm and allowed ten minutes to reply and no ten minutes to respond to this solid issues and five minutes in reply and support appeal and then we'll go back to the sullivans and allow five minutes in reply and that i'm there there up the aisle that sufficiently confused everyone when we got the ten million dollars verdict we had a decision to make because there was only a runoff seven million dollars in coverage of the nine fifty for the first settlement of a six million dollars at the hospital  but he had a place of personal injury cases and i think that's very well established both in the rule itself as well as in the memorandum of the march two thousand and seven memorandum this applies to personal injury cases this was the difference between the song and the project and again the difference is that the minors the minor his'n interest in the outcome but it is not a claim of the mine or the than the cause of action that we prosecuted on behalf of there was a sign that you're showing the parent and the mother on behalf of the plants that were stepping into the shoes the defendant because they want to protect themselves from any subsequent claims there is no reason to bring it there was no objection to the settlement not at any time we were everyone was delighted with the start of it it was i certainly not question amount of the settlement it was paid promptly and there was no issue there i frankly i could i consider whether to bring this under six point four but it clearly  was relating to personal injury cases the only place and i had a probate judge who had knew the case who knew the parties who knew the individuals but i think it would have been in error so to bring it to two under six point everyone agreed with us now as for is the figure i even reduced our fee on this we had an arguable basis to under our contract to to demand forty seven percent of the entire nine point seven million dollars that we recovered and which chose not firm firing us and telling us not to contact me if a client if i received and instructing us not to contact them and even in their letter and even in their communication there is no dispute about the fees now there was an issue is it doesn't indicate and is it any interest of the minor doesn't distinguish between the interest of the minor and the interests of the adults it's i don't think there's any question that the right of an adult e this is now four months later and i go to the g a o because i can't file a motion to reconsider the fees as i'm not a party i don't have the ability to do that i guess the g a o took to file a motion to reconsider county was it was a valid or no one disputes that there was no objection to what time went by when it's some point you know i'm i have to comply with the order and distribute the funds ok that just that they knew if they had a problem i presumed they had a problem in january when we got fired they had their time to to to file that motion if and then they knew these rules but they didn't statement made six months later and i think that the you know again there was no evidence it is you know i know but but the fact is how could she not when it's right there on the captions we had discussions about played the case to where we came back the next day and i discussed it we have the motions in limine and then there was some discussion but not a formal conference and then the following day did defense attorney and i came to an orders were based upon what i believe to be but there's other issues as well i mean whether it's six point four does not apply then there's no basis for i mean there are obviously than the rest of it  later but it just seems like the local county court was moving forward you came in after all that was done there is there is a sense of that this delayed  the the the proceeds were there the miner was there in the garden was there so this has really grown less they had to court going at the same time they're not even in the same county and then all the county finally went ok whatever and give up so now all those issues are now moved really because although county vacated their orders cases of people disabilities that we have to go to the court and get these things approved and get our our fees approved costs and this is coming in so the cost of the thieves heart was being a a settlement between parties and i could we could talk about the cases that were cited in the brief but in the ministry only the lobos all those cases stanford effect where there was like a settlement done t resurface by the parents for the claim of a minor and then the minor when she gets majority files a lawsuit and the insurance companies come in with the releases and say this isn't a good business the case is that you never got it approved in error but there was certainly a requirement to be there we have these protections in place with kobe they act to protect the minor not only from unscrupulous lawyers or people seeking to take advantage but i skip those parents as well and if he so important there you know that they never opinion talks about the minors being wards of the court and the they require special protection and then you have a situation where an attorney thea forty seven percent was being charged when even the retainer agreement that had been signed a few weeks before this action was filed said attorneys fees of thirty seven percent and there was no justification given for this forty seven percent fee it was just taken and then this mobile county before this bad faith case was filed hundred thousand dollars of the minors money was taken said a segregated used to fund this litigation and that and those hundred thousand dollars came signed immediately before the f a the case was filed and it was on behalf of the minor it was first rate thirty seven percent fee so it didn't have to be subject to the red mill statute with the lower firm and and found that they have not proven to her that they deserve any more than a one thirty with regard to the miners for cover she considered everything they filed multiple motions to is the fact that dr suess didn't didn't stick with that shall if you will she she can talk to her own analysis to determine whether it should be higher than thirty three and find out what was going on the attorney who brought the two fourteen no one had to be hired as the governs the end of everything before trips like so i mean there were steps that the family had to go through plus the family ok so in conclusion i i think we've discussed the jurisdictional basis for the court this is clearly a minor so plain this money was taken from his account to fund the claim the retainer agreement for this case was signed in his name there were of the settlement that releases things like that were signed on his behalf the case caption can change his name and quickly the money has to go jessica's marks this from him to another that it will work or mine or the other things and you know i don't i don't know what's going to happen as far as the future may go but he's holding all this money and the stated in one the transcripts that he approved our fees and expenses so any suggestion to the contrary i was incorrect there's never been an issue in this case as to whether the first one the reason there's a second contract your honor is because of the this is a contingency fee contract it's got to be in writing agreed to by the parties by the plaintiff in this case and it has nothing in this contract which says that it ever gets the fees on the first one the first one clearly states that we're entitled to forty seven percent of the total collected and this second which clearly contemplated even at the time of the first settlement which is why for at the convenience of the plaintiff the funds for to prosecute that were allocated by the court clients here are we told them that this is going to require substantial sums to prosecute this and we thought that a hundred thousand dollars would cover that end and they they said fine just withdraw with elec heaven allocate process this was their decision not mine i didn't this i'm not a risk for those questions if they were the ones who are responsible for those quest this was it at their convenience that we did  especially in the country the contract clearly the first one and the second one indicates that and under the first one which was operative as well as i couldn't prosecute the case without another  irrefutable evidence that the reason that the allocation of a hundred thousand dollars for the expenses was for the prosecution of the collection action and we succeeded of this they argument here is that somehow they were mutually exclusive and there's nothing to suggest that effect make it quite the contrary if i can go into that at the point of three six point anyone's interest i post judgment interest and without restriction tory basis for that it's got to be based upon a statute and there has never been a judgment entered  against us and so therefore it would be totally inappropriate because she thinks that it's necessary to protect the my or i'm still alive and well in my my firm is now merged with with this words we're  healthy i'm healthy that way this is an equitable argument but an equitable argument that's that's beyond that is beyond the power of a court this is going to be based upon a specific statute there is never been a cook county i six point four just doesn't apply to to this case i don't think you can read six point four without reading the memorandum it's clearly it is clearly i'm not aware of a sit on it for i understand i'm under in order to distribute these funds i do that at some point there's got to be finality of five months i think that's more than enough especially when  dirty briefly counsel talked about the bad faith retainer agreement as not being usually exclusive with the earlier medical malpractise agreement if the court will review the actual content of both of those  for in addition to the what's promised this first the attorney's fees if the oic agreement is extraordinary services are going to be provided for thirty seven percent so