little more than we normally do good morning  compensation case eventually penalties were awarded to mr bell for a totally wrong one hundred seventy thousand dollars and that amount was ultimately compromised down to eight thousand dollars that's been our position all along that those penalties eighty thousand how someone the arbitrator or the commission someone thought that it shouldn't be reduced to zero because there was some reason for those penalties to be imposed whether it was not payment of all the medical bills or delayed temporary disability pay well so you don't have a basis for malpractise unless you can establish malpractise and you don't have a basis for malpractise if there was any reason for the event to have occurred as it occurred right and the question d as a result of the rulings made by the commission and with those medical bills forwarded to the lawyers yes is that in the record i've i believe it is again  feel we're getting away and this is a factual issue that that that's something we would have had an opportunity to prove the trial court level at the pleadings the n f l and a concern to get away from the legal issues which were in fact the reason why we're here today yes i mean again fireman's fund realize after they got after they received the arbitration award there that there was something missing and they'd have the activity to present that type of evidence out of review would they not their concern was that that had not been done in a timely fashion by their counsel and that they may have been deemed by the commission to have wait that right and stuck with the penalties and that's why they ultimately found it prudent to enter into a compromise at less than half of the original amount of the penalties so which your theory is that they were worried about the fact that maybe the commission would not consider that evidence so therefore they relationship was of no duty to the attorney and suffered no injury that in this it's made clear by the learning curve case that that is just a generality but on the three points there and assigning would be a stranger to the attorney client relationship in this case  had then a learning curve pace i think it would have been clear that that holding didn't apply to the facts of this particular side that if you get to the learning curve case that it stands for rejection of that per se but in any case there can be a only the loan was bought there was still another party out there the court found that the purchaser obtained the rights and obligations to go along with the loans therefore the end result was a separate company ends up with an interest in the outcome of and there is an obligation to the party you're retained by to act competently and good faith if you don't act competently what what what what what would flow from a malpractise suit saying that all three parties had thought there was a duty that flowed from the lawyer to all three parties and if there's a duty to all three parties why does firemen fun even need to be in the case because the duty flows to the other two is  to see him be it just call it a day yeah that's what you're saying you're saying to see him beat if he collects it's going to collect all eighty thousand write it right in exchange for agreement to pay the forty thousand dollars up front by  dismissal on the basis of the assigned of being improper under illinois law which the court adopted that argument so at this point for them to invent separate grounds i think is improper and that argument s be rejected as to their claims that it was by the court to deny their motion for sanctions that's within the discretion of the court the court certainly may have found that dismissal of the action itself was adequate under the circumstances and this there's no basis for an argument that there's been some abuse of discretion here in a non ordering of sanctions if the court could have easily found that pleading the refusal to produce the assignment discovery they were playing all these cat and mouse game to someone for months and months and months and months and then finally finally what could have been easily decided to have adjudicated the assignment issue originally but instead they find out months later that virus what really happened and they just changed leads like somebody like me trying to sue somebody else's wife for divorce and then we find out i they instead come up with this figure which is twice whatever the amount is that the circuit court didn't actually rule according to what you just explained to us it both judges ruled that the assignment was improper and that a bit of a preparatory you know they came out because i'm like and even if it was then that's not a forceful that's what i put my motion so we did cover that however it's not in there that's why i put my reply brief the funny thing is the relief they're want you to say this was an abuse of the trial of course discretion and we should send this case back and allow them to repleat for a fifth time and why because they concealed the assignment that judge quinn told them to set forth with more  described it before i asked the question sounded more like a sanction where they didn't comply with the court orders about it it but it makes a difference i think i think to me it's  at the top of that i remember you're probably familiar of the quote of civil procedure that allows you to drag somebody along so you can have standing to me i think that's a fraud on the work that i think that is their case should be dismissed out of that si we know which of these really applies in and i question whether they all really apply i think they all apply i think they'll play and that here let me let me say it this way the circuit court judge doesn't do more work than is necessary if you have five grounds to dismiss the judge finds ground one paddock which he stops there by going to two three four five and that's the problem with the water that you're asking us to review it doesn't became the case that at the end of the case they're nothing more than a beggar they have no the fact that they may have recommended me number one they never paid me number two about a month ago i had a woman come over with her daughter who was arrested the mother is that in the record of this case which you're talking about now i think what's on the record is what it's just taking the pleadings at and looking at the pleadings in a way that most favorable to the plaintiff they were my client all they were was a third party administrator it and whether they recommended me or even if they did pay me that does not create an attorney client relationship what did they did pay they don't there are all they do is process payments that they get from other people so they don't pay the money comes either from a selfish or corporation or it comes from the insurance company in this case it would come in very basic a problem service company and if they pay yes issue that came up with the assignment that the issue of injecting violence on a party that wasn't even involved in the case is now the recipient of an order from the circuit court saying there is no need to disqualify that's not before the court that really doesn't lawyer an officer of the court that really bothers me that it really bothers me that somebody would go to that exterior i don't see how a while that type of a fraud to be perpetrated out saint sometimes to my frustration on this case and i you know i'm not going to fault him for being that way although you know again i think that there should as i said when you engage in that type of a fraud on the court i believe that there should a sanction attached to that because the notes if there is no sanction what's to stop people from doing this all day long where do we draw the line i think that it's important as the judge and as annoying to know who is on  standing when you don't have it there needs to be a sanction for that right i think you made your point thank you for finally i have a couple minutes assignment and discovery spawns which flies in the face of counsel argument that there was quote unquote active concealment you don't tell somebody about something if you're actively concealing and i think that the last quarterly the last complained that the only complaint that we really it's legally dismissed because it's sign it's improper there or that whole nature of what we're trying to allege can't be done that's separate from saying you could have done this but you failed to include the specific allegation of the aside those are two separate things and that was not the nature of his motion to dismiss and if that's in fact the only leading deficiency seen by the court then it was improper to have dismissed this with presidents but that's not the the grounds that the underlying court made its decision and that's why i make that argument that i don't think there was indeed a need or rehearing at issue because those orthographic he's going to argue today that we should have alleged that in the complaint well then the proper and at conversations with fireman's fund in the luis in this case because they are intimately involved and they do want to see the case resolved and i'm back at the point they just signed away their rights to actually take the money in the end i think that's a major distinction or a