i think in this case the court initially had had to wish to waive the argument and i had found an objection so i think a court order holding oral argument in this case i'd like to first talk about least restrictive alternative i think this is an easy issue for the court to reverse there was no disposition report that complied with the requirements of a mental health code and this court can follow issue had not be forfeited so i think clearly there is a reversible issue here looking at the least restrictive alternative but i would like to talk with you today about ineffective assistance of counsel and i would just like to point out that court is nerve racking for even the healthiest people i have been representing clients in the trial court and the appellate court for a number have been different would have been different if a court official and the attorney one of the attorneys that the bailiff the court clerk somebody else needed to use the restroom may not have felt well may have been we don't know may have been feeling ill that day or may have just had some nervousness  lawyers representing respondents in civil commitment hearings sometimes quote relax their adversarial role out of a false sense of paternalism turning the commitment hearing into a phony ritual and producing distrust on the part of the patient and hold and i would add that this also gives the preceeding the an air of having a foregone conclusion that this is a formality that we're here to go through the the actions and get a commitment order and be done with it and once the case the attorney here at at the trial was effective in one way and that is that she did file a notice of appeal by behalf of the respondent and that is from the record about al was ineffective and at least fire ways during the trial there was the issue of the client's presence that was dealt with  well in a very discouraging way the lack of objection to the vast hearsay testimony included in the record the only witness was the treating physician and he testified about all things of course he did not observe things that happened before the respondent even got to the hospital under his care you know we know that hearsay that kind of hearsay can be used as a basis for the doctor's opinion but it's not considered substantive evidence of what actually happened to get the client to get the responded to the hospital there was no objection to the lack of the written dispositional report as required by section three hearing the counsel asked the judge could you please let me know how long this order is for because i'd like to advise my client like to let him know  that this was an order for up to ninety days so he may have taken advantage of some of his other rights that if you look at the transcript of this here take out the first page take out the official stuff at the end of the hearing is maybe eight pages of testimony we allow a minute per page that was a pretty short would not have said anything to to prejudice him to the court for one thing or make him move foolish in the official record i would have said your honor i know we're through the court hall and cook county but i can say that at least there the judges have some understanding they reasonably accommodate  newspaper for and you know everybody has to share the newspaper they don't get to watch the news they're only watching movies on video so i mean i don't know i don't think we can take any goods from that's but you mean you don't have to get to this issue out of ineffective assistance but i was here in october i'm and ineffective assistance case to that was rotten see and just it's like when you were one of the justices there and you may remember i do not remember which just to set it right somebody said is this the woody allen approach to representation and i wasn't i didn't know what that meant and then i think it was explained later that ninety percent of life is just showing up there's recognition here that these attorneys are showing up but that's about it and i don't take this lightly that we're that we're saying that a fellow defense counsel is ineffect but when we do say it it's because we think it's very important and i don't know that we're going to see these cases going away as far as an appeals involving ineffective assistance and i hope he says until this issue is addressed we did but if you don't do anything if you try to meet this difference between involuntary a voluntary commitment if we don't do anything and the person gets her he basically it's like why did she do something you knew he was problem what caused the problem was the failure of the state to it hears the statutory requirements and then is certainly capable of repetition we have a man who is who has a mental trial court to be sure that the evidence that's before it is properly challenge that's all capable of repetition with this patient or this  not the right way to deal with these cases whether it's c or somebody else what with respect to everything he she has a have said it was the it is perceived he won with this case there are other cases already based upon everything he's testified to concerning the condition of the individual concerning his environment concerning the danger that faces him considering all that together without going into specification as to each other potential place where somebody could this is again this is like a very unique situation in the sense of i understand there is counsel responsibility as an attorney substantially because all the information was there and then you're suggesting well you don't even have to have that which given our case on the district even that much as long as we got a conclusion received from the the code was amended to provide for a written dispositional report so twenty years after the americans with disabilities act recognizing that all persons pick said use the words this is a tough situation to use the words that the mental health code is meant to help persons with mental disabilities this is a tough situation and yes the mental health code is not the how and when it's not helping and when the courts aren't doing their job when the trial courts are not using the mental health code properly to get help that may or may not be needed for personal mental illness then yes those court those decisions need to be reviewed and i think i've addressed this sufficiently i think the court has a full understanding of move this in this situation and i would ask the court and i would ask the court to please consider the problem with the ineffective assistance of counsel so well you know but with the change of the statute the legislators took into account we can dispositional part but three hundred ten does require a written disposition report and that that i'm numb and became affective about it here after the robinson decision so i think it's time to require that written this positional report when people take the time to put something in writing they're paying a lot more attention and if anyone had taken the time to write out a dispositional report here maybe the idea would have occurred to somebody that if this family needs some coumadin and he needs the right dosage of coumadin maybe the least restrictive thing to do would be to get in touch with the pharmacy make sure he's getting the right dosage make sure he has an ongoing prescription make sure he has a connection in the community who can be his liaison for his prescription that was the main problem here according to the testimony of the doctor the doctor thought well you know he didn't have the right level of committed system and his report was i didn't have the right sized pill so i took what i had is that because of mental illness or is that because he knew he needed to take we don't know who provided this information to the police maybe the police provided to the hospital emergency room or social worker and that gets written in the record or gets told to the doctor in the doctor's telling into the co so so i would ask the court to please distinguish between here's a evidence that a doctor can rely on if it's reasonable to use as a basis for his opinion but that was there still needs to be the substantive evidence to other but the opinion is only as good as the facts it's based on and if if we don't have the substantive evidence presented for the opinion the opinion is called into question to hear all we had was was the hearsay that admitted to the doctor i would ask you to consider that darryl c yes a person