we would not have consented to them however metric goes on to provide that if the course of action the attorney recommends is in itself improper that is not the case meaning that we are not required to and you knew that you were suggesting something that was not going to comply with the law so what's the threshold well your admixture it provided in that case that and that was concerning a bankruptcy and the advice there was that it was the advice was not given as terry changing from a chapter eleven bankruptcy to a chapter seven and that that the only reasonable that could be taken is from the facts is that if the clients had of northern that they you know the requirements between chapter seven and chapter eleven bankruptcy that there is no the statutory violation i'm just trying to put myself in the ex ante position what once the statutes violated your right and these draconian penalties come along but if there is i don't what does that have to be just the statutes been violated that he just willfully sat down and drafted a deferred compensation agreement that failed the requirements of illinois law or reasonably debatable or what's the i sa provision wasn't added condition a limitation on his rights and finally receive payment of the earned wages guaranteed to him under the act given the robust illinois public policy in favor of making payments  say ok if we get fresh capital i've got gives on that but i don't see any commitment by the company or by mr fisher in the  that that's the only way you can be pretty at night or on a but the advice and the understanding of the client is that they did not have to pay him until that time until such time as they was in his that the three hundred and thirty thousand dollars in compensation disappears well arguing here that the client's understanding and the invites they received is that you could defer payment of that a man out without penalty supplemental agreements which is that a rd compensation agreements employees agreed to be paid their crude wages in the future when certain specified profit goes met so that was the understanding of the client and that allegation is and i would say that the case i think of lopez is instructive in relation to this is that it was found there that the judy of an attorney encompasses protect but the client was given advice that they could defer these compensation and they they received no advice of the risks of doing that and with the belief based on advice there is a from counsel that they could defer it without knowing that they would incur these these huge draconian penalties so i wonder if we could turn for a minute to who is the client because it certainly seems to me that st cut mr fisher was providing legal services for the company not for the person we're calling marlo i don't know lawyer our corporate lawyers automatically personal lawyers for directors officers from leadership i know you're on up but the rules to clinton place it is possible to have a jewel representation between the company and say it's a shareholder in chief executive and we would say that is only in certain specific circumstances where th suffered to the detriment of the liability as a result of the wrong advice because she was found to be an employer for the purposes of the only wage payment in collection act and sorry she should also by contrast if that advice had  i it's a it's a kind of a backwards way to reason yourself into an attorney client relationship she was interested at one point and director an officer insurance which indicates to me that she knew somehow that maybe she had a different scope of exposure then than the company as a whole why do we say that that she can look to fisher as her personal  a company not who wasn't freedom to perform all title searches immolations through the real estate transactions and subsequently freedom successfully sued the attorney or at least if it  appeal as as having a judy to freedom because it was found that that attorney was the only attorney on the transaction and as the any attorney on the transaction it's transaction and as a result something damages here what we're saying is that mr moller relied on the advice along with the company as to the transaction being that if the earl of compensation she relied on the advice that he provided to her detriment being an amount of three hundred and fourteen thousand dollars legal phase i'm going to go i hope you are just an elementary question here is being sued for negligence your honor i don't have a case specifically on that issue but i will say and i can say i'm running out of time here and i will just quickly say that there are cases where it's the better than i do against someone who is an employee of its own and again the allegation is not as the entire relationship he was hired as the chief legal officer of the company it is just specific to this credentialed corporate attorney with this case really boils down to is a retaliatory action by a disgruntled former to former employee or employer excuse me you have t and its chief executive officer were held liable for the spree there were only two issues raised on their deal the st is that they claim that they have at adequately led marlowe as an individual client and the nd is relative to the proximate cause issue and for a compensation agreement now i use the term deferred compensation agreement but if you read the arbitrator's order and you know the actual document issue which is in the record it's actually it does not  complaint is clear in the beginning pair beginning paragraphs that as mr fisher was the sole source of legal counsel and marlowe as to operations of the company nowhere in the complaint is there any indication that mr fisher actually had had was engaged by his marlowe in any type of personal personal personal way or any claims that that would have been entered in a personal nature and if you also look at the employment agreement which i think is very important in this case in which was also attached to their complaint it's very clear as the capacity in in which mr fisher was parties which ultimately governed you know the wages and mr fisher's work it was very clear that he was only representing the company right i think the argument was declared as is not that there's a duty generally but there's a duty thirty which has not been challenged and then there's this idea of the supplemental agreement relative to mr fisher and i think if you read the arbitrator's order which again is in the record in the attached the complaint is referred to in the complaint properly considered by the court it shows that this was not intended by either party to be and he sort of an amendment to the original employment agreement by the parties it was basically a confirmation of the amount that had been a ruling this entire time and as judge hamilton and recognized the this is not an odd scenario that you know want to look at the transaction the supplemental agreement so to speak the supplemental agreement itself there's there's nothing in here that would indicate that mr fisher had some type of individual duty to miss source and the agreement went no further than that and if it did go further than that it would have been lawful but it didn't go further than that's what was not in a lawful agreement exactly or on so i think if you read the miss marlin you have to raise the supplemental statement of the amount owed and said oh no this is a scenario where he's agreed that we don't have to pay him until certain sources well not only did the arbitrator rule that didn't happen but know the level experience experience she needs about herself or her own complaint you know that in illinois you have to pay your employees and there are consequences for not paying your abilities and this is not a new scenario where you know attorney corporate attorney is you know working in house count they'll have to somehow advise their own companies they work for that it's a requirement to pay your employees i mean that whole concept to me just i sup what you're calling the supplemental agreement on with the arbitrator's decision to vote does is just confirm what had already been done by the initial employment agreement i take it your position is that there were sort of wasn't a nd and separate transaction that might have triggered an attorney client relationship that this notion that there was at least a specific relationship can't get off the ground because was not a scenario where they were trying to renegotiate their agreement this was my client's brand new deferred compensation agreement in your view new york not up there i don't think it's nothing in the documents suggest it was intended to be by the parties to be in and then so i guess it was it right and if you look at page eleven judge would eat i mean i think it's even clear in his final sentence it basically is only conclusion in reference to this deferred compensation agreement and i see that in quotes i think if you look at that as a whole this is not a scenario where she grain she had any type of supplemental attorney client but we also i think if you look at pelham that case piece of paper and you know there are individual implications why doesn't he have at least some duty to say you know before you start signing things it's inhumane personally be on the  hook you should get your own lawyer well your honor i think that we're in regard to this particular you have to look at the capacity in which they were acting and i think in the capacity in which they were acting which was as  of the company which is the company that had the obligation she didn't have an individual out and all and all judge would it almost doesn't matter because in this scenario this didn't increase the amount of liability that she ultimately suffered or the company suffered because they were already in violation of the act there's nothing that they could have done at this point that would have eliminated by omission of the act that occurred back in two thousand and fourteen when they stopped paying so i mean it's really neither here nor there when it comes down to it if you think about the proximate cause on the proximate cause plane i do think it's important because i just mention with the remainder of my time that i don't eleven chapter seven bankruptcy it was obvious in that particular scenario that that they would have had to they should have basically not hoops pursued this chapter eleven this is not the case here and it's not the keys because a lot ability was already heard nothing increased it it just never was paid so if the whole idea here is that they would not have entered into this confirmation of the wages owed whatever you want to call it supplemental agreement whatever else that's fine that they needed to have pleaded that and they didn't i don't think they can because i don't know what it would have really changed about the result of  intended to amend the employment agreements and to that extent we're not arguing the three hundred and thirty thousand dollars damages where arguing the statutory penalties because metric provides that it  options for alternative legal solutions as well as explain the force able wrists and benefits of h the purpose is to allow the crime to make an informed decision here the client was not told of the risks of entering into this agreement or the