differently concerning one injury and from this one investigation into both this one injury one office of the state generated two separate charges one civil and one criminal the question before this court this morning is the application of illinois supreme court rule four point two which is commonly called the no contact or anti contact rule the question essentially is whether the rule is going to apply to whether the subject of representation applies in cases where you have the same injury to the same  as to have to keep them from contacting her child protection attorney and for them around the trial judge who was is experience  properly excluded only the statements given to the prosecutor's back made he left all other evidence intact and the state was free to day administration of justice and in conducting fair trials but this is right gave him the authority we're certainly not minimizing risk or its ability to discipline  attorneys however what we have suggested and do urge again this morning is that the it's not the punishment of the individual attorneys because certainly this court in a any kind of disciplinary proceeding could take action against the individual attorneys meanwhile the office of the cook county state's attorney which is actually the office that brought the charges not the individual attorneys with steel proceed with that really goes back to the supper the subject of the representation and the subject of the representation in this case the only reason why i miss santiago had a representation in the child protection case was because of the injury to her daughter on june twenty first the only reason for that of course was because the state has brought  an action in child protection court they terminate her responsibility and remove the children in order to protect them and two months later w the investigation continued by one detective in particular and he two months later called her down to the police station and continued questioning her about the very same incident and prosecutors and in fact that is the correct interpretation because the knowledge of the though for attorneys both sets of attorneys and if i might if i will  could vote for the cook county state's attorney's office the child protection attorney assistance work for the cook county state's attorney's office and the felony review attorney's work for cook county state's attorney's office so according the attorneys involved in this case one of them specifically knew but there was a child protection case and but me santiago's children had been taken away further they consulted with a detective involved with the result be different if he can the state's attorney's office were representing that agent agency the result would not be different but what if it's the attorney to this attorney or perhaps that you should have known and you also acknowledge that this rule of professional conduct is something that the org enforces in the event there were complain filed against her under the rule do you think that the a or b c could find that she violated by in the words of the rule that she knows the party to be represented by another lawyer have to go to protect him or herself from charges of violating rules of professional well when as here you have attorneys working for the same office and as more yes we are out all of the facts that would be relevant to this particular issue once more and i would stay to the court that it's not on with the rest of its case which actually the way he fashioned the the order he did because her statements to the police were still present as well as any other the fact that there is not another basis within the criminal case so lend itself to this court looking at that or is there any way that is persuasive that they are to matters we're dealing with communication between defendant and the prosecutors in this case it is a question of statutory construction defendant's interpretation however violates the fundamental rules of fundamental principle statutory construction their words and phrases should not be viewed in isolation defined in folks as exclusive exclusively on the term matter and argues that because the child protection proceedings and the criminal case stem from the same incident they are the same matter however the existence  factual overlap does not mean that an attorney represents an individual on two legal matters there's no question your honor said the plain language of the rule presupposes an attorney client relationship with respect to a particular matter in other words it is the turny client relationship with respect to a specific matter that controls the rules application and scope not a factual overlap hence a question that must be answered here is whether the attorney client relationship between  a train mcgregor and defendant extended to the criminal case and there are three significant components for the world to be a play the first to go as to the formation of attorney client relationship the client your honour's must manifest her authorization that an attorney act on her behalf and that it had a trainee must indicate an acceptance of the power to act on behalf of a client and this this attorney client relationship must be formed with respect to particular did not cover the criminal case the order point of mcgregor was limited only to the child protection proceedings after defendant was charged mcgregor did not represent a friend in a criminal case in fact a criminal court appointed another attorney for that representation in factory owners the child protection proceedings and the criminal case they had a different timeline in fact the child protection proceedings are terminated and closed while this criminal case is still in a priest's pretrial posture in the criminal matter this highlights the absurdity of applying rule four point two because it's applying an ethical rule that it's intended to shield attorney client relationship in a situation where  representation in fact defendants interpretation honors would fundamentally alter our understanding of attorney client relationship how's an attorney to know he's a duty to act if he doesn't even know the new matter exists argue that the trial judge as part of this inherent authority something that a judge does every day is a determine what evidence should be excluded and what evidence should be that moved it and because you had a  or d c that this defendant is acquitted of the crime and let's further the example that the ag or d c finds no violation of the rule and what is equal knowledge and all i'm saying is if indeed a judge can do that with it within his inherent authority where it's already been decided by this court that any really a cold we will authority here between a trial judge on ethical violations of the rules i'm not sure as it pertains to a certain cases well judge can determine based on what's before him that there is an ethical the authority to discipline the attorneys but in so far as the judge has to make a determination about what evidence should be admitted before him yes he has to i don't wan