refer to a u t v primary client but a lawyer might still owe some duties or person he's representing the only facts before you are the facts contained in the point where such force a crime aphasia redress before foreign police commission mr person was appointed by the union to represent and who according to the allegation is a complete induced mr zander to give up his rights to fire police commission be represented by an attorney if you got in trouble at the police department and he was told they would give him an attorney what they didn't say to him was gee i'm your attorney but really not i ow but i don't you know i would like to see you just say we're not going to extend accusation or through appear for two attorneys that there is not to require a relationship there has to be in a curry quite a relationship also what very high level and that's why we had better practice cases and when you shave we're going to create a special class of boyer's who can do whatever they want and not suffer any risk  a prepaid legal organization or any number of other organizations who's paid a trial of the individual and practicing law not practicing for practicing on i don't know many duty to keep it a law and that's representation which requires really attentional the judgments of both the circuit court and the appellate courts and hope that the supreme court's action simple rule fully applies in the public employee context and the illinois public labor relations act  policy principles that the national liberal relations act is guided by number two like federal law the illinois public labor relations act imposes a duty of fair representation on the unions for all of its  members rd like federal law illinois has established a comprehensive statutory scheme that benefits from consistent and uniform representation and story interpretation just for to the to answer your question to mr gooch the the exception to activists in under a rd party beneficiary theory would in fact swallow up the action civil and the problem is because any exception to the actions and rule ultimately would yield in the defeating the the comprehensive statutory scheme that is in vision after the reason deliberation of the legislature and set up by the only public labor relations  correct i did not need to be a lawyer and that's that again that's common under under the stance of the sound policy reasons to apply the at as recognized by peterson and it's can progeny or the fact that it provides for a uniform standard of care for both the union and its agents in connection with activities related to the collective bargaining process it also provides for uniform statue of limitations which will provide for prompt resolution of labor disputes and finally charting a disc of a different course than all the other jurisdictions that have really engaged on this issue  would make it more difficult for illinois public employee unions to obtain all the legal representation which arguably would put them at a competitive disadvantage these are the public employers and other unions not since we asked you to that's laid out throughout the complaint throughout the arbitration process on behalf of the union as allowed for by the collective bargaining agreement which to your question just government is in fact part of the record it's said it's at the record from  and fifty one the entire collective bargaining agreement is contained within the record and that collective bargaining agreement is in fact the mechanism which gets this case into the arbitration process and the case   the grievance an arbitration process that's what's alleged and pages see ten through thirteen of the complaint well it's to represent the the union member of throughout this disciplinary grievance in arbitration process that that representation does not need to be performed by aware of though although it can be and in fact was in this case so to that extent represent represent is is and what the cases have held is that when there is an attorney involved in the grievance and collective bargaining process the attorney is acting as an arm of the union and so does essentially as an agent  that section three a one b of the federal labor management relations act provided three things provided that unions could be sued that unions were bound by the acts of their ages and that agents and members were exempt from personal liability for judgments against the union it further found that national labor policy intended that the union as an entity should be the sole source of recovery for any injuries inflicted by now from aft enson twenty years later in  that that claim was robbed by a union member against a union attorney like we have here for acts performed in connection with the collective bargaining process in that instance it was an n f l player suing an n f l p a attorney for malpractise related to the and what the what the nice circuit held was that where an attorney performs a function in the collective bargaining process that would otherwise be assumed by the union's business agents or representatives the act consumer will is squarely happen that's exactly what happened here the st circuit in considering that matter that legal malpractise matter rejected the notion that atkinson was somehow distinguishable because the plane before it dealt with the public labor unions there is go that the controlling act was the civil service reform act as opposed to the labor management relations and what the what the st circuit held was that this legal malpractise claim however you dress it up is in fact a claim relating to the duty of  representation and it found that because that achates and therefore applied with even more force because the duty of fair representation was in fact created by the civil service reform act and could only be brought before the federal labor relations authority the administrative agency designed to consider these these labor disputes and what the st circuits held was that if the union itself could not be sued in  district courts for a duty a fair representation of violation it would defy logic to allow disgruntled members of that union to accomplish the same act by the result of  suing the union's agents their attorneys in the in the district court and what the court how is that atkinson must apply in the public sector as in my plays are the only public labor relations imposes a duty of fair representation upon public employee unions and makes any violation of that duty an unfair labor practice and that's that's set forth in section sixty and section ten b one of the exclusive jurisdiction of the illinois labor relations board again section five of the public relations act and also recognized by a by the fully fully court now as as aptly noted by the appellate court in this case and  is from paragraph thirteen through twenty two of the court's decision other states courts have similarly followed at consent and peterson notwithstanding the specific language that exists in the labor management relation were won from maine the supreme court of maine in brown vs maine state employees association and from the supreme court in nevada in wiener versus baby now i think it's it's early what i should say is the duty of fair representation is really the key interpretive principle that that explains the act in some rule and why it applies in toto in this instance so the duty of fair representation as i mentioned created by the act section six did also a breach of it is an unfair labor practice by definition under section ten b one but only if the union engages intentional misconduct in addition all unfair labor practices including those relating to the duty of fair representation are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the illinois labor relations board section five  disgruntled litigant could if they did the exclusive jurisdiction requirement by seeking to file an action in the in the circuit court which happened here in addition a frustrated or or disgruntled member could evade the intentional misconduct requirement set forth in section did ten b one should could he they'd that standard again by pursuing an action in the in the district court now under a legal malpractise theory where we're going to  issue that's why those those rules and that immunity has applied in to again as as as i mentioned to every court that's engaged on this issue with the extent of legal malpractise of the extent we're talking about a special category of that attorneys are somehow held to a different standard  these claims are a compassed with respect to the duty of fair representation what is mr what is mr zander alleging but for the fact that that the union fell below some standard of representation what it represented him throughout this grievance and arbitration process again related the collective bargaining agreement and again but with the courts uphold health and really every court that's looked at this in the legal malpractise context has has uniformly held that  articulate a claim against the unions agents in violation of atkinson and then by way of responding it's pure ear to go against the union itself so for these reasons and the reasons laid out by the appellate court in its decision this court should take an opportunity to take this opportunity to join all the other jurisdictions that have considered this issue and affirm that that yes consistent with federal  law given the the online policy interest and consistent with the idea of a uniform body of labor law we are going to apply the actions and rule in toto irrespective of whether care that workers are held to and what we're going to do if but we're going to do is carve out a rule that says there's a standard of care for most attorneys and what to do except when you're involved in something that could be construed to be a grievance and then it could be as negligent as they want to just well or they don't