counsel this case presents several issues today i intend to direct my argument towards two the first is per se conflict of interest that gets right that was that arose by virtue of counsel representing  victim in the case and then the second argument will be directed towards the conflict between counsel acting as j l and defense counsel who were the most straightforward path to reversal in this case is the conflict in counsel representing unnamed victim in the case the case law is extremely clear and attorney may not simultaneously represent a client and as so long as there is either a contemporaneous prior relationship with the victim in this case the state charged austin with having committed acts of sexual abuse against two foster children and his brother ricky the state presented some evidence through one of the videotape statements that austin had made sexual contact with ricky so in addition to the charging instrument there was evidence at trial that there was such concept that there was sex sexual case is all refer to a situation where the attorney has of ties to a person who would benefit from the unfavorable verdict or who post in this case and that can be weighed but in this case the defendant's defense was none of this sample it wasn't one of them saying the other one did something to the rule in hernandez that is very clear a victim is a victim is a victim unless there is an adequate waiver and i will agree with you that at trial counsel represented that both boys as carl respondents disputed that these facts had actually occurred but the fact is that when you court when it when attorney represents a victim the risks that arise from that type of representation are so high that there has to be a valid waiver on that record i would give just for example one example and again we don't know because the risks are so high when these per se conflicts arise but nope been explained to austin on the record first of all counsel believed that he didn't discuss the conflict of interests that a rose between the brothers in any way with the boys and so with the record reflects is the conflict of interest discussions that took place in terms of explaining to austin the risks that this tool representation came from the trial court and the trial that's had minish ans were limited to very general admonitions that because you are both cope respondents defense counsel may not be able to add vigorously advocate for both of you very general admonitions why wouldn't that admonition apply to all in stove all the defendant was aware of that his attorney had a simultaneous in a prior relationship with he was a smash and grab burglary and counsel had counsel himself had a prior relationship with the jewelry store owner and his firm had a contemporaneous relationship with the jewelry store owner and what the supreme court said it's not enough that the defendant knows that a conflict exists their house should be an admonition that explains the significance of the conflict and how that conflict might affect the representation so for example in this case if ricky were portrayed as more of a victim in this the state's theory was there was lots of sexual activity going on in the household between all of the children if ricky were portrayed as more of a victim in this case that would increase his chances perhaps of acquittal and so council with his duties to ricky in trying to seek recusal will may soft pedal austins to facts and vice versa ricky swiftly suffered under the same sort of problems as austin did in this case ricky just had the state of the defendant's alleged victim and cazalet went beyond just focusing on the fact that the accused was aware of the conflict the court focused for one on the fact that the defendant had no awareness there was no demonstration in the record that that the defendant was aware of the complexities of state law a similar analogy is true in this case last and had no prior experiences in the criminal justice system or the delinquency system he knew literally nothing about the system from what the record tells us and in fact he didn't even really understand the role of his attorney because the court had admonished him early on that your attorney has the right to override what you want in this case if the attorney thinks it's in your best interest so even if you tell austin that this conflict exists he's also been told by the judge on an earlier occasion it really doesn't matter because you're trying to do what you're trying to wants to do anyway as long as the attorney thinks it's in your best interest and within this colloquy between the judge and counsel counsel actually said i think it's in the boy's best interests for me to represent both of them so i would argue that the waiver in this case there just wasn't enough information shared with the minor about exactly how this conflict with ricky as a victim could impact  preface my comments with the fact that that's not necessary in a per se conflict and as discussed in the miners brief there were a whole host of mistakes that that council made in this case that so i think it's both i think a lot of his bad wording was attributable to how he saw himself in the at the first hearing the trial court admonish the boys and their parents you're entitled to attorney and an attorney and oh by the way the attorney is the one who makes the important hauls in the case if the attorney thinks something is in the boy's best interest even if the boys disagree defense counsel did not  the fact one count when the court gave right there a discussion i was for the count where the court initially believed that counsel represented the parents counsel pipes right up and said no no no i only represent the boys i'm not representing the parents in this case but counsel didn't make any type of rection at that point when the trial court described exactly what the scope of counsel's representation wives and they're after when counsel explained all of the reasons why he wasn't contesting the videotapes why he was taking the actions that he was why he was engaging in joint representation that discussion was for elite where we're all seeking the truth i'm just like the prosecutor i i'm just is an important issue for example this particular issue was argued the g a o all defense counsel issue was argued just a couple of weeks ago before this court and right right yes so it is the type of problem that occurs not infrequently know that you know obviously he's not tamed by the two juveniles they don't have a book retain but appearance and he's trying to solve a family problem which involves also i believe it's an actual conflict that arose based on the counsel's relationship with the parents that what the parents wanted was not necessarily an acquittal for these boys a lawyer whose child is in conflict with the law the first question that old boy or asks himself or herself is not who is the best g l i can get my hands on the question is who's the best defense attorney i can get for my child the parents in this case didn't have the benefit of that knowledge it's what makes giving children surely defense attorneys so very important because their parents who aren't weyers who don't have familiarity with the system that defense attorney is the only stop between that the accusations and that child actually being educated and consequences that are extremely serious for for minors in illinois especially after the amendments to the  places attorneys in nearly impossible to stay positions when they are expected to bow defend a minor and accuse silly of minor and also worry about the best interests of that minor there is no place for a attorney for the first time and you have that initial discussion with the with with your clients as a defense attorney your goal is to seek acquittal by all means fair and honorable and sometimes that means you don't want full disclosure from your client because it might interfere with how you challenge the state's case for their down the line in contrast the other side of you as g a o l wants to know everything there is about the case because what you want to do is you want to be helpful and you want to do good for the child and you need to not have all of the facts at your disposal in order to do that so as a defense attorney do you not ask questions because you don't want to interfere with the defense as a ga i'll do you ask too many questions and harms the whole defense counsel imagine that the client shares a confidence with you says yeah i'm guilty i did it that's it as a g a o you may believe that an adjudication is in that minors best interest because you're in a small county where there are mental health services and the only way that you're going to get services for this kid is if you run him through the delinquent  proceedings under this article minor shall have all the procedural rights of adults in criminal proceedings unless pressed specifically precluded by was that enhance the protection of the minors and then it goes on to say that my heirs are not entitled to examine to hold the state to its burden to get out of but notice none of those rights can be vindicated by a fifteen year old you need a warrior who has a mastery of the law to do that so my position first is that that theory specific provision of the a need to read you don't need to appoint another attorney but if the guardian lot at leiden is not in a tree then you have to represent an attorney to represents the guardian ad li and then i would also just you know just additionally note we're not in the waiver of counsel and actually aren't you actually asking us to change the period tenor of all of these juvenile seedings and make them as exception not the rule you don't need a guardian ad litum in every case so i would argue that that this is not to say that that defense counsel can or can't act also act as a g a o is not going to impose any tremendous costs on counties folks going to require counties to do is look and say do we really need a ga elemis case county is going to have to make those choices but but you can't allow to interfere with these fundamental rights to a fair trial i would add just lastly that there is nothing about providing a juvenile with a defense attorney that interferes with the aim the rehabilitative aims of the juvenile court act first of all the way to get to truth is through an adversarial process where two attorneys are going at it client probably did it or maybe did it or even if you didn't do it the services that are available are going to help his client that that the truth seeking function of trials is is severely damage if a minor is guilty and the state does k the court found that there was a potential for actual conflict but rejected the notion that a per t here this really doesn't apply because the the attorney mr novak acted acted not only in the child's best interest throughout pleadings but also in acted consistent with  but he's also the state's giving up the right to life testimony in court which is much more effective well i think you know obviously none of us in this room have any firsthand knowledge of sexual conduct but it is just beyond by the imagination that you would hear about the opportunity to cross examine those troubled children in order to somehow guarantee what i would think is going to be put patients a boy anyway think it's just beyond me again assuming that counsel saw the videos he knew that the allegations were pretty ridiculous other discussed and and he was right the respond far as the conflict actually i guess it would be for say conflict between responded and in response rather being represented by the same counsel here there was there would be no risk at all  were were very complex for her defendant to know about especially when it comes like a point to the conflict of interest that could rise in that case here like i said the pretty straightforward defend it or right to make any objection about the fact that mr novak is representing both the minor respondents that somehow this was a conflict or that you didn't adequately represent both of them or one person was better represented in the other or the defense of one is that the other did it and i'm not involved if if were i mean that not only to not only him but his parents too and his brother all said all express the way the the because any conflict issue but like i said it wasn't an actual conflict here or per se conflict and i think he was sixteen and i think again i think a sixteen year old would understand the basic concept that we're innocent which i'm i don't think it's outrageous for this it's even a sixteen year old below slightly average intelligence to be able this to deny any of the state's allegations and say that the victims were lying and i don't think that i guess that that was the common defense but i don't think that i don't think that the waiver here there were any complex issues that that made invalid as far as a conflict of interest of both the parents and counsel again there can't be an actual conflict of interest because the parents at least by virtue of their testimony were going for the same role as responded and counsel that being the victim for lying that there was no sexual activity between children her son's father's testimony denied even the respondent made any admissions at least ation and also deny that any sexual activity was going on in the house between the children and he did say that he would want to know i think any parent would want to know there's sexual activity going on between their children and that if there was  government intervention would not be appropriate but of course this was all in the context of this outbreak in my view this happened so as far as any adverse interest between parents and responded view again i think that that was an argue that that question was somewhat producer yeah i mean i would hope that he's not there to not see the truth but again that was an argument and all of this all of his positions and all of the evidence he presented were consistent with the fact that the state heard the state's allegations were false that response should be  he even if he said that again i think you need to look at where he said that a context of the rest of our own and as far as the ineffective assistan you just very briefly at the risk of casting aspersions on my fellow defense brother and our job is not to seek the truth our job is to make sure that there is a fair trial and that truth emerges from apps and i just criminal proceeding if there are criminal charges there are trials status trying to either at best put you on probation and at worst put you in a correctional  l not as an attorney to look out for what's best for you can't waive the defense attorney and then by providing for a guardian ad litem i think that's a recognition that the legislature is recognition that these are two distinct rol that they talked about defense counsel in section one one three is that you can't waive defense get an attorney in your defense and then there's this separate statutory provision that talks about when you needed g a o that when there's a conflict with the parent where there's a possibility that it's it's in the my jail is in the minors best interest this section of the statute recognizes that the g a l s a separate role if the legislature envisions that the same defense attorney who was charged with defending the case also had to act as a g l this whole g a o provision would be redundant because every defense attorney who would step into the courtroom would also be serving this g a o l role the fact that the legislature created this provision for a separate g a o l i think  who the goal is to get the education on his record and primarily so that he doesn't have to register as a sex offender i think there's a tremendous likelihood that if this case goes back the state's not going to be able to prove this case up if austin has a