january two thousand and fifteen so i want to pause there because i think the crux of your argument is that under illinois law only the formal filing of an appearance counts for purposes of this statute but illinois in general seems to have a more flexible approach to attorney appearances and at least on the facts of this case it appears that your client was variety of cases in which they essentially waived the attorney appearances and i guess i'll just throw in one last point have you let's say at the first hearing from thought i don't know what this guy's that all we understand the plan to pull troops out like i understand but i'm saying broad more broadly than that she was represented for purposes of illinois law as such that you should not have been contacting her directly question was whether  courts permit let's say service on the lawyer only if there's a formal appearance and i'm saying that illinois law as i read it isn't that rigid that illinois law  so for example to bias against cain i would just fight the lack of a formal appearance it's obvious the court as well as all interested parties understood that this guy was in that instance the substituted attorney of record accordance with the plaintiff's wishes and there are other illinois cases so you know we're certainly not the people to tell illinois how to run the court system but they seem to accept but it will being attorneys of record through what's an individual case just a number of insulin around this this represents a problem every single day the collection for closure of lawyers face every single day they get questions like effects is from lawyers they get phone calls from lawyers they get letters they get e mails my friend my relative my neighbors in a lawsuit with you i want to help them with a short sale is there someone we can work something out happens every day sometimes they go to court sometimes impure for the judge sometimes they don't throughout the whole of it working with them months later in the ocean it didn't matter and they were fine send in a motion mr finkel they're fine heaven in court and the corps play benefited from that also keep in mind judge mcguire probably had one hundred cases that day was that sit there looking to see whether or not every lawyer steps in front of them has it appear about nor was the lawyer appearing probably had twenty or thirty cases in two or three of the courtrooms that's not what the administration justice is meant to the evan do and they can issue out of that mr finkel he's a lawyer he knows the rules he knows what he stands and from the court he notes show and there's no scene testifies records clear the clerk goes and looks and you follow the procedure they look and see and it says middle of page no up no answer files pro se appearance filed you know a lot of gray area a lot of gray area this comes up daily next just in illinois not just in indiana not just in wisconsin everywhere there's not a court of opinion on this yet you guys and i were asking the lawyers are asking the reason this is a case where a debt collector chose to communicate directly with the consumer even though the deck look knew that the consumer was represented by an attorney but isn't the question isn't quite that because i think everybody understands that there was a representation let's say for purposes of the state's ethical rules and so on but the question is did the debt collector violate the statute by sending notice  the client and to the lawyer when there was no formal appearance entered in state court proceeding i think it's a narrow question of whether their words representation writ large certainly your honor and they did violate the statute because there was no express permission to communicate directly with the represented consumer the rule requires the state rule requires service on the party when you know what tourney is of record in the sense of having filed a formal written appearance  prerequisite well the rule says if a party is represented by an attorney of record it doesn't say that if they get to the party is represented by an attorney who has filed a written appearance and if your honor is in being see an attorney shall file a written appearance befor the letter exactly what the illinois rules require that's express permission of a court of record what the the case is don't say that a written appearance is required in order for an attorney to become an attorney of record and that's what the case is in the rule eleven context so the court said the procedural rule does not suggest that mailing a notice of lien to a former patient is the equivalent of filing an appearance or other pleading with the court with the court was concerned about there was a party who served notice on to the other party and not on to an attorney he had no idea that that there was an attorney of record clear language of the rule and the cases which apply it such as for case westfall to bias indicate that one becomes an attorney of record in a case by filing them and parents or other only way to become an attorney of record they didn't file appearances in those cases and in those cases the other parties did not know who was representing whom they didn't know who else to contact besides the party so of course the party is the only person to notify when you don't know who else to contact but here friedman and mr fink omas holcomb's attorney were in court studying the case for trial and then two days later they sent a motion for default directly to ms holt it was entirely unnecessary they attorney of record you don't have an attorney of record for eleven purposes if the attorney who has been showing up hasn't filed a written appearance when i was at was the fact pattern in this case this judgement was in  of the role requires say well again the concern in those cases was who are we going to serve we don't know whether this person is represented or who else to contact but setting that aside pardon in rule eleven refers to both individual natural person parties and artificial part artificial person such as corporations or l l cs so to comply with the rule in the context of an artificial person they can serve notice upon the parties agents or representatives that's how you get noticed to an agency relationship with a lawyer and then just say well you can always serve even some random lawyers on which you can prove agency under the restatement of agency or whatever well in this court's decision in every vs r j i'm acquisitions the cour quote the lawyer receives the notice and shares it with or explains it to his client hence the debt collector is communicating with the consumer in the f t c context clear that if a dec elector communicates with the consumers attorney is the same as communicating with the consumer themselves so any notice concerns are resolved by this court's decision saying that communicating with the doctor with the consumers attorney is a not on top of that the exception but but your opponent is looking for a safe harbor  appearance of a record now some of the language and some of the opinions will say filing an appearance of record or other pleading and you might wonder if another pleading is the courtroom basically it's a check off and the paper with the orders were also filled out by freeman themselves so freeman knew who he was and knew about the role in the case and the bottom line here is what did the other parties know did they know that the other person was represented by counsel that's not the they could have contacted mr fink oh they could have raised the issue of a lack of appearance the two days before they sent that motion when they were when they were sending when they were setting the case for trial you know i had no other terror they had no other service option other than to serve her directly well it should be their burden because they're a doctor and they're prohibited from communicating directly with represented consumers unless court of competent jurisdiction expressly permits it and in fact this court competent jurisdiction the illinois supreme court requires it to be done in this way well i would respectfully disagree that ruhleben is expressed permission expressed means directly stated and there is no directly stated permission to communicate directly with the represented consumer simply in the phrase otherwise service shall be made upon the party at best it's implied permission and implied permission is not enough to take advantage of the narrow exception provided under section sixty nine you to see but that does set up a very unsettling conflict between the state courts general feature and the federal statute well i think that no conflict is necessary because again we already had an attorney of record even if there was no formal appearance i do believe that he was the attorney of record because of the conduct the course of conduct in the case now for rule eleven purposes well and i don't know that there's a distinction between attorney of record for rule of law and purposes an attorney of record for example and that for contempt purposes in the case of people be buster there i mean contempt is a pretty serious thing that determining whether or not the attorney was attorney of record was required to appear at the trial and he was showing up to court he was communicating with opposing counsel and he set the case for trial but then didn't show up and they held him in contempt saying you were the attorney of record you were supposed to be here he says no i'm not i didn't file a written appearance so i'm not the attorney of record and the court says no your course of conduct made it plain that you were indeed the attorney of record in the case and the facts are strikingly similar to this case mr fink i showed up to all the hearings he's there setting the case for trial friedman's own notes indicate that they knew he was her attorney and the judge entered orders indicating that he was her attorney so even without a formal written appearance the course of conduct made it clear that he