issue in this matter and number two for the specific purpose of discouraging frivolously and while one carries seven does not seem to be clearly and notated by cases that such as mine the court could not find piece a case that specifically signals such fees but she couldn't find one that disallowed it and no one yet has found  the now facts situation respecting the nature of the response and whether or not that person was opposed should not matter so i would o why should why should pro se these not be allowed in other type of case why should we allow them in one thirty seven cases like a sanction to say well i'm going to seven allows for the sanctions right and then doesn't if we don't allow attorneys fees in other instances like payments progeny with respect to you know somebody representing themselves if we recovery of attorney fees in any and all cases as this court has consistently done not by automatic or mechanical application of policy but rather through thoughtful deliber and mr grey would suggest that that creates somehow back in our case law and it is our position that there is no such vacuum because the rulings have held that regardless of whether or not the litigation is bringing the case or defending the case that it should not matter that there should not be a special carve out or rule one thirty seven there should not be a special carve out for pro se attorney laid against but we should continue to follow the rule as we always have done in illinois stating that concerns are many here in this issue and i would just mention of you when a pro se litigant that is also an attorney represents himself he's deprived of independent judgment that is one concern that we have we also say that he's not barred from seeking out counsel should he decide to do so there's nothing that says that he cannot seek out an attorney to advise him in these matters we also say very clearly that as your honor pointed out we don't allow plumbers and doctors and other professionals to recover fees so why would we make an instance in this case if anything we should be the example thirdly i would point out and importantly where will the system of checks and balances come from how we monitor and police if we start to allow attorneys to recover attorney's fees i'm good tourney and i'm also the client and i have a dispute over a line item in the bill i wonder who will win that argument so how can we go about it as a body that is a legal profession making sure that there are no improprieties additionally how do we prevent the floodgates from opening for individuals to pursue group one thirty seven sanctions only with the hope of knowing that they might possibly be awarded attorney's fees i do not think that those are the types of cases that we want to start to hear but i can pretty much guarantee that we will start to see those and while it will prevent attorneys then merely sinking sanctions knowing that this court has been ruled that attorneys fees would be allowed those are some but a few of the policy concerns i could certainly go on and talk about others the ethical ness and under reasonable in this certain bills that attorneys may bring to court and i'll use the present case as an example let's talk about her moment these being unreasonable  regulations tell us as attorneys that we are not to pad our bills we are not to amalgam a myriad of tasks into one line item we are supposed to accurately account for our time  mr gray says he has dutifully done but yet his bill shows instances where he has estimated his time and we know that that is also not allowed mr great omit the fact that in this case he's asking actually now for the original amount to be awarded to him almost thirteen thousand dollars even when the panteley or awarded him only nine thousand dollars so he has even asked this court to do something that was not allowed or committed in the lower court let's talk about the an ethical miss about a pro se attorney litigant bringing his own bill as we talked about as i mentioned before we don't allow padding we don't allow an attorney to either list a myriad  it i'm sorry your honor it is not my ass attention that there could not be a possibility where it could be work where that might work what i am concerned about is if we start to carve out this instance that then we will have even many more instances where the court will have to review a bill that might be voluminous in nature as mr gray pointed out this is a familiar case it is relatively small in nature as opposed to some of the ones that might be heard by this body or others i can only imagine how taxing on our courts resources that that may be if we start to then allow attorneys to bring not only their bills for one thirty seven motion for sanctions but for others as well so while currently we allow for the court to examine a bill very carefully on a case by case basis i would venture to say that we would more appropriately begin to tax in a way that we don't want if could that be that there would be that many more so every pro se who brings a case could also be hiring a lawyer and be the same amount of just to asians i do not disagree your honor that there was still be that taxation on the court but it think  taxation that we would not necessarily want to open the floodgates to allow so it's my position that yes you are absolutely right whether he's representing himself or if there's an attorney representing him to review who still has to be done what i'm suggesting is that we don't even allow that doors of the open that we don't even allow that pandora's box to open in the first place by permitting pro se attorney lead against to bring their bills originally as i think that mr green is asking us  illinois that says we do not stand for pro se attorney litigants under any circumstances whether they instigate the claim or they are defending themselves to recover for us you should earlier there were go where there was that says this is what we stand for our public public policy reasons starting with hammer and continuing on through last year and this is a position and holding that's been supported at the u s supreme court level as well that we  if i may i'd like to turn our attention to the second reason why we're here the first was being the attorneys fees and the second is being the relief that mr grey six under rule three seventy five the  burden under rule three seventy five suggests that if after consideration of an appeal or other action that is determined that the appeal or other action is itself river list was not taken in good faith or point in proper to hear mr mccarthy's leadings and his complaint mr great would have you believe that this case comes from mr mccarthy being suffering from sour grapes about not getting his proper or beneficial share and that is not where this case comes from mr mccarthy is entitled to have been officially ery a beneficial share has accepted that share but unfortunately the trustee nor the trust attorney has met it out any of those assets to date as mr gray mentioned this case has gone on for quite some time many years and none of those assets have been distributed including to mr mccartney that's what this case is about it is sad and unfortunate circumstance that the beloved friend of mr mccarthy took his own life but he set aside a gift to give to mr mccarthy and it was only in his zeal in pleading with the successor trustee with the trust attorney mr gray that those assets be distributed when they were not he sought the help and assistance of the court as a reasonable person would do when that help did not come he accepted the rulings of the lower court in the panteley or that said that his pleadings were over zealous and while he was not given an opportunity to amend his pleadings he was sanctioned those sanctions included an award of attorney's fees which we believe runs counter to the case law here in illinois so we're here before you now asking that the appellate court ruling to not awarded tourney's these be upheld but more importantly as it relates to now this will three seventy five requests for sanctions is completely out of order the  unsatisfied with that has now brought to this body a request for further sanctions and further attorneys fees under rule three seventy five which we believe do not apply it is our position then that we are humbly asking this body i do believe i may have been remiss in asking for my five minute rebuttal but if there are no question  but that fact that not in polls on this court to ignore the rationale allowing court then automatically there's no floodgates open nothing is going to happen any more than it would normally have specious claims or fees should be stopped at the crowd court level position and it seems to need that if he's being sued if he's defending himself he has no right to do that and should necessarily have to hire a lawyer especially on a case