than your own as they please the court my name is brian isaac i represent illinois in this matter i guess it's election day so it's probably apt to point out that i think the city lawyer and myself see this case through completely different prisms as the but it is an important ethics case in terms of lawyers gregory moved on has no interest nor does any lawyer who has any brains have any interest in getting into a disagreement with a federal district court judge it just doesn't make any sense if we do lawyer at the time brief is directed to trying to get up from under the sanctions imposed on counsel i don't see any arguments in favor conflict i don't think so judge because i think we made a reason to terminations regarding what the differences in attorney's fees and sanctions the two different issues and if you look at the whole a very decision which i'm reading right now it eight or three f second two six five you write quote a different standard applies when a defendant prevails for their attorneys fees may be awarded only if the court finds of the plaintiffs claim was frivolous unreasonable or groundless or that the faith is not even a requirement for the imposition of sanctions in favor of a prevailing portie quo the proper test for that award is whether the claim itself is clearly merits the claim is groundless the mere fact that the plaintiff a law is on his attorney's is contrary advice does not with the form of liability what happened in this case was that the court essentially found that there was a lack of a probable cause and if you look at the state antecedent decisions from new york state court of appeals specifically br cologne and a sunday those cases seem to state very very clearly that police do have the power to make probable cause arrest so there's a huge difference between issuing a repayment under forty two u s c nine hundred eighty eight and a as to the attorney that's correct and we think that the rule is that the sanction is only appropriate and this is also in all a very but there are some other cases where the state made all the affidavit lacks any color of law whatsoever ar with the record below i am do you know if mr mouton ever interviewed mrs humanise without mystery man has been present he said that he did in his affidavit he said he interviewed her both with him being reports that contradicted her version of the events so again with respect to this matter it seems to me that if you look at what mr bolton had when he first had the case you have the sprint report which clearly indicates that there was no domestic abuse you have perhaps even more importantly a piece of information that was relied on the city very very and most importantly on page two ninety nine of the record actually gives information which is actually exculpatory to the plaintiffs with respect to there being any domestic violence at all specifically to ninety nine and i'm quoting a ambulance for a fall in the bathroom then story changed that hospital says which it should be when social worker notified police no visible injuries observed p one complained about pain in the right shoulder so again this is a version of the event that the police relied on which actually has the wife attacking the husband after he came home drinking and there's u v here for three minutes i am so take it now if you want can i just finish this thought and then i'll cut myself to two minutes so this is again the kind of exculpatory evidence that will turn head and i think at the time when he decided to go ahead he was really trying to represent his client's interests the best he could as opposed to just not submitting an interest here what i guess i'm hearing is that mr man is agreed that he doesn't have claims i mean that's the only thing i can understand him to be saying i do think that it at the very beginning there should have been another attorney to look at this and decide that on behalf mr mouton prevails here mr menace is going to be left with this bill because he has not raised the merits arguments on this case the only arguments on behalf of mr menace had to do with the excusable neglect issue which isn't even a live issue in that never an attorney in this matter i don't believe he does because i see that in this case is represented by appellate counsel and i also say that below mr mouton did not make these arguments on behalf of mr men as in the court below so he took the same position that he's doing now that they're doing now which is that opposing the same sions against him on the merits not opposing the fees on the merits only opposing the fees as the motion being untimely filed which it wasn't of course and it's interesting that my adversary cites the ollaberry view thompson because in that case this court said that same attorney sanctions exist to fine tune our litigation system and weed out some of its abuses to improve dispute resolution process and i would say that this case presents a prime example of conduct it's in need of improvement the district court in its discretion sanctioned counsel in a rule fifty six age after determining that you actively participate in the submission of a false affidavit that he knew it was a false if it is and he did this to survive summary judgment now for the affidavit of mrs menace to be true there would have had it would have had to involve a huge conspiracy her husband was drinking goes up to her puts her arms behind their backs and smacks her multiple times then she goes to the hospital the hospital talks to her in her spam in her language which is spanish they say she was in an altercation with her domestic partner this is where she reports to the hospital then there's a volunteer victim's advocate who interviews are independent people she writes he pulled her hair she fought back to defend herself she twisted her arm back she later put in an affidavit that says i remember using an interpreter to talk to her and in no  certain terms mr minister told me that she was abused by her husband and then we have to you know independent police reports as well that they've written up where she reports to them that she has been abused by her husband these are independent people who do not talk to each other are taking contemporaneous notes of what she reports the affidavit was obviously false and i want to address just briefly this idea that the jealous advocacy is something that we want to promote and of course we do and i think that this case goes beyond i think the court was correct in its discretion in finding that it did for two reasons one is this is not a hindsight case and that's what all a very was was a hind that that was a hindsight case where you look back and you say well at the time the pleading over or whatever else was filed the attorney had a reasonable idea to think that what he put in was true and we only later discovered evidence that made it not at the time that this affidavit was put in all the evidence was out there everything was known we know nothing knew now that we didn't know then but mister we'll put in this affidavit knowing about all these documentary evidence that that really flatly contradicted the affidavit and the second them thrown out he tried to have sanctions put against the city attorneys for relying on them and these are the steps of the district court correctly considered in her discretion to look at this and say this is conduct that sanction rest on my brief unless the court has further questions about this thank you like the hospital record delineates here that the or you know we keep talking about this being as a as a domestic abuse case and any any time man puts his hand on woman that's just a terrible thing to do but she wasn't beaten she didn't have visible morgues and the grab them in of the case well she told the ambulance people she did she doesn't speak shoot to get she only speaks spanish and the hospital records that domestic abuse the miss cohen whose affidavit my adversary referenced as well says reciprocally and this is in yes say eleven the reporters refresh my recollection and i have a specific recollection whole detailed explanation of the different scenarios that they have in the phone systems that they have there's no evidence that the phone system was used at all so there or these inconsistency again no plaintiff's lawyer is going to want to take a contingency case that isn't a meritorious case and no one's going to want to continue with a meritorious case that's going to be ferociously litigated but i think it's fair to say that he really did have a good faith belief in the client he had a good faith belief in the case and he didn't want to abandon the client when he was confronted with a judge who expressed serious reservations about the claim that actually came true thank you