the first interest and second districts have different viewpoints as to what role one point five a b on my rules of professional conduct require in terms of having an enforceable referral fee agreement specifically the first district has held that the term term being and writing resulted in the underlying referral fee contracts being unforeseeable the trial court then subsequently denied the motion the plaintiff motion to reconsider the second district then reverse and found  that the term did not need to be in writing i humbly submit that the second district erred and their interpretation and an interpretation of rule one point five which requires the term trying financial responsibility to be made to the client in writing  better serves the spirit of the rule as well as own eyes history and public policy of protecting the client's interests and placing those interests and rights about an attorney's financial gain and it's a pain in the second district  three primary points first of which being the last antecedent rule as we discuss in our brief we don't believe it really applies because first of all it doesn't appear to be ambiguous the rule itself and secondly even if that's court were to apply the last antecedent rule of the rule and it's all contacts including the corollary clause is that this court previously discussed the inri e b case the joint financial responsibility including the share each lawyer will receive and that the agreement is confirmed in writing we believe that the term joint financial responsibility is necessarily part of the arrangement and the agreement that must be confirmed by the client in writing think there's been a couple of cases obviously where that spend discussed i believe kansas had one and there are some other states that have made that distinction illinois is somewhat unique in that this court specifically found a joint financial in the role as opposed to just joint legal responsibility so i think that that was intentional and that the state more so than other states wanted to make it clear to the client and to the attorneys that each attorney receiving part of the representation was going to be financially responsible in terms of legal malpractise cases damages other situations where if want to train some hook for the client and it's going to be paying that client i am just so is the other attorney you think i also believe that the purpose of referral fee agreements obviously there's a long history in a situation where there is a referral only few came and i believe for a long time those were prohibited as being against public policy when they were permitted they were permitted under a very specific set of circumstances and it needed to the focus was always to be to benefit the client not to benefit an attorney by establishing networks or relationships where they can interpretation of the rule is when the air is on the side of full disclosure to the client where the client has all the information that the if both attorneys are assuming responsibility the both attorneys oh that client a duty because both of those the chinese are going to be matter next shiners i believe that the second district also erred in finding the interpretation of one point five that requires the provision to be in writing doesn't concern the client as what i've just started to discuss here i think that it is extremely important that the client i advised of his or her rights and that those rights include if necessary the ability to pursue the original referring attorney for any actions of legal malpractise or any other actions that may arise depending know him or her judy and i don't believe that's the case and i believe that that was also evidence by some of the arguments that are made in the briefs that are referring to chinese not expected to make sure that the verse chinee and china who is handling the matter complies with that mine and i believe that's you're i believe so yes that certainly is not it's not the specific issue that we were briefing today but that is my position that our client would be entitled to from that from the underlying i would certainly be a separate issue and i'm not sure that the referring attorney would have standing to raise those types of arguments on behalf of underlying client but i'd be certainly happy to submit a supplemental brief on that issue if this court would be interested in hearing those arguments as well the last major issue before the second district in their opinion they argued as to whether or not rule one point actually be applied retroactively and this actually present submit that the first district has the correct interpretation which is now this is the second time i've been taking a stance against my home district so hopefully that doesn't get me into too much trouble but i believe i point six which was the restrictive covenant provision and acknowledged this this interpretation this change might apply it retroactively might have some very big impact but that comes secondary to the public policy that served and i think the arguing that simply that the client needs to be made aware that in order for the contract to be enforceable by the refrain turn in seeking to cl these and simon honors i believe that referral fee only agreement should be examined very closely to make sure that they benefit the clients and that the client's interests are always protected above any monetary gain by the attorney and if there are no other questions i can responsibility the foreman decision effectively judicially man's rule one point five improperly rule one point five is not the rule against perpetuities it's not  particularly cryptic it's very straightforward in its language justice thomas in a two thousand and ten in people vs santiago number one of seven three nine one gives us instruction on how it to interpret the rule of professional conduct of the court in that case found it useful to examine the context of the rules as a whole and the court stated that it is well settled that by employing certain language in one instance and wholly different language in another instance the legislature indicates that different results were intended in deliberate so is there another rule of professional conduct which would shed light  drafters in time i submit there is a rule seven point three which deals with the solicitation of clients states every written communication from a war soliciting national employment shall include the words advertising are what is my point my point is that if the drafters intended specific language to be made part of a rule they will so state they did not so state in rule one point five as justice thomas pointed out  signing a writing which disclose its number one a division of fees will be made number two the basis of the division and number three the responsibility to be assumed by the other lawyer so arguably the predecessor rule one point five was lists of written requirements in the present version of the rule to include joint and joint financial responsibility but they didn't think again i would ask that the court presume that mission was the liberal even if joint financial responsibility language was required to be expressed in a referral only contract it's unlikely that this obscure legal ease would enlighten the client reading the contract in any meaningful way as a matter of fact the trial attorney he believed it referred to the contribution of court costs and he argued that since fair sampson and why didn't contribute any more cost to the define it one point five was not complied with this is recall this is our second rope go round with the same parties i was here two years ago arguing jersey fictional issue the defendant didn't want to pay fees saying that i filed in the wrong work and this court decided in the pla ff failed to comply with one point five because we didn't contribute to or cause the trial judge correctly dismissed that argument rejected it and refused to direct the verdict for the def the define it chose to appeal only the jurisdictional issue they could have appealed the one point five issue but they did not so why am i here i'm honored to be here but i shouldn't be here and the reason i shouldn't be here because we asked the trial judge in this case to a stop the defendant from raising this issue again you cannot have a second but if the awful judicial stoppel as you know is it is a doctrine of judicial economy and if an issue of substance and consequence is libby gave it it can't be litigated again review in this case let's not lose sight of the fact that that word are being appealed from is a dismissal order we were thrown out of court with prejudice based on our contract not complying with rule one point five the standard is no set of facts viewed in a light most favorable to the plaintiff would entitle plants were covered there are two ways to permissibly divide fees under rule one point five one is based on proportionate services rendered the other is in a referral only situation if both law firms assume joint financial responsibility here the pleadings allege that the plaintiff was rendered proportion of services including assisting with initial interviews translation services document preparation client contact and communication answering a client's question's about what's the say of so my case where my p t d checks why am i being would would take presenting the matter before the workers compensation  n at age twelve the appendix of the planets brief at the very top of the page is a confirmation letter which accompanied every contract their tank contracts which were alleged in the plans complaint and those contracts were accompanied by a confirmation letter which was authored signed by the defendant which states in his own words legal fees in this matter will be shared by our offices based upon our respective contributions in the handling of this case says that language describes a proportionate services fee division not over for only fee division the typical referral fee is one lawyer calling another saying could you please handle this case i'm not capable of handling it i'm not competent to handle it the relationship between the parties in this case went far beyond the as as the the pleadings allege we provided sundry of additional services beyond merely calling the attorney and saying will you accept this  so the defendant's argument of judicial sample is misleading and simply not true the facts alleged in various times and why one of the same exact facts alleged in this case the relevance of the facts and how they pertain that fact is nots does not come into play and is of no relevance in the one point five i think the rule analysis that's before the court now so judicial asop was based on a party taking two positions factually consistent the facts of the stand same here there are no alternative facts being alleged here there's no such thing as a non se so what will listen on contracts calls the joint financial responsibility is an implied condition law it's implied in every referral only agreement in it and  in defined an implied condition or should be a condition implied in law this condition has nothing to do with the expressed intentions of the party but isn't imposed by the courts so it's implicit in every agreement and you don't every referral fee agreement one point five and he argued that we failed to comply with one point five and therefore the verdict should be directed so the define its own attorney recognize that one point five is implied in every referral the agreement quote him he said quote whatever the contract was between those parties by operation of illinois law these provisions of rule one point five were incorporated into the contract and i cited the transcript at age sixty five in the polic so you don't have to believe me the defendant himself acknowledged that so that one point five refused me joint financial responsibility is is implied and it was argued and you make history for that if you look at the plaintiff's contract in this case joint financial responsibility is conveyed by the very first line of the contract the first line says as well as the defendant to pursue the worker's comp x aspects of this contract so they have liberty for argues that as long as the the joint financial responsibility concept is conveyed here we in our contract we have a division of fees we have the different law firms being identified that satisfies rule one point five this court presumably agreed hear this case based upon the conflict of the districts we have the first district foreman case which held joint financial responsibility must be expressed if you examine if you  both cases the second district opinion a fair assumption and why starts with reciting the standard for reviewing the spring court rule as a non seated in the sontag oks you look to the plain ordinary language of the rule that the second district cautioned against judicially amending rule one point five examine the history of the rule they applied the last and seating rule of construction and discuss the committee comments the rule foreman on the other hand was focusing on whether one point five demands substantial compliance or strict compliance and of course concluded strict compliance was required and then in a the statement was made in the absence of any legal analysis in what would be the potential conflict between the two just right there wasn't really any legal analysis o do we want the rules to govern relationships between referring to chinese the chinese are sitting there for all and those clients who are going to be receiving the benefit of the representation i think that form and explains why this case is here which is obviously long before i was involved was strictly a jurisdictional issue there is no dispute over the interface of one point five that was not an issue that was right before this court and i think it would be unduly burdensome for this it seems a little unfair for the plaintiff to take a position in the first case that jurisdiction in this court has to be appropriate and jurisdiction the workers compensation commission is an appropriate because these fees were strictly referr agreements and that was actually something that this court wrote in its own opinion i mean first one that it reviewed the contracts it reviewed the facts of the case reviewed the transcripts and paris won and found that these were referred to the agreements that the plaintiffs involvement jurisdiction but now that we're here and having to comply with rule one point five now we're fortunate services i don't think that's appropriate i think the facts i mean these are for a green and a plaintiff and bringing clients and then refer them to my client to handle the worker's comp side of the problems in the plaintiff's brief while it like a mock and came in their grief in saying that they believe that the contracts in this case did substantially comply with the rule they did also point out some serious flaws in the plaintiff's brief saying that there is this misunderstanding that i refining a case to another attorney and at the same time receiving a fee there is somehow no responsibility to the client to make sure the case was handled appropriately  and that misunderstanding is highlighted on peach fifteen of the plaintiff's brady and that's something that this court can take this opportunity to clarify and to let all the attorneys practicing in illinois i understand and know that if you are going to receive a fee for referring case these changes are being made what is the purpose of some of these changes and looking at the red line version of the one thousand nine year old the twenty ten rule i think it really explains that clarity and  that's something that perhaps needs to be clarified and rectified and that if you're going to sign up a client and immediately refer them out someone else but retain a fee or get some monetary gain from the train that you're sending it to that that you need to make owning it is shouldering that risk and letting the client know hey i'm on the hook to oh i know you're going to be dealing with this person and that this person is going to be your day to day person or handling the case in the workers compensation commission but at the end of the day i am responsible to i'm standing here to answer for for that case as your attorney and i think that that's it just makes sense for any public policy i think it makes sense for the way that we practice law in this state in conclusion honor's i would just ask that you reverse the finding of