morning justices may please the court counsel mike level bomb representing appellant plaintiff michael applebaum the certified question before this court concerns the no i d rule supreme court rule seven five six i hope to discuss this morning fo bases and for public policy reasons for a decision in favor of plaintiff i'm not abandoning other points for which claims of stands on the produce the no new rule applies to unlicensed persons both the rules of professional conduct and  c's duties apply only to state licensed turns in actor status attorneys are subject to a r d c and the rules of professional conduct the record is clear that a r d c asserted this authority over plaintiff investigated this matter and took no action it is logically impossible for play to be subject to a r d c its oversight as a state licensed attorney and at the very same time as defendants contend be an unlicensed individual for the no he will rule to apply on the official website of illinois courts the public is informed quote the clerk's office maintains the role of attorneys licensed to practice in this state and quote in active status attorneys remain listed there on plaintive was listed there on when the underlying was action was filed a license to practice law can only be revoked by this court's plaintiff's license has never been revoked in the record for example in pages seventy two and one ninety defendants admit to plaintiff being licensed and allege registration fee shortfall is defend and sole claim to support their arguments they repeatedly state that payment of additional money would have obviated this matter the no any rule does not deal with money it deals with qualifications and fitness a person who was never qualified to practice law causes it to be invoked it is not involved when the facts of the case do not implicate by fulfilling the regulations for the study of law which govern the admission of applicants to the state bar one qualifies to practice law plaintiff is a member of the state bar since one thousand nine hundred eight and has been in good standing no amount of money can buy the fitness and qualifications to practice law no amount of money can take them away a fact situation based solely on money cannot invoke the knowledge the rule until the first district's ruling the knowledge a rule had never been applied to a licensed illinois attorney despite a par days to apply it according to defendant's logic for example in brigham which involved a more extreme example of a practicing attorney who had been removed from the master role for failure to pay fees or in the quote many cases in which an attorney is not legitimately entitled to practice law because he or she failed to pay the requisite fees and that's a quote from the decision at the appellate level a break up defendant's logic about the shortfalls leads to an absurd outcome it opens all those cases alluded to and any sense to collateral attack when the goals of protecting the public and ensuring the integrity of the court system are not implicated by the facts the no the rule is not invoked and these goals could not be implicated in this case in a wrongful death action the real party in interest is the next of kin is beneficiary not to be a state nor the administrator has interest in or right to any judgments that a licensed attorney can represent the legal interests of the deceased and to state pro se nor is it possible for the courts to be at risk a purpose of a no the rules to protect the court itself in the administration of its proceedings from those lacking requisite skills with no additional skills testing in active status attorneys are immediately returned to active status upon payment of a fee which this court has already held is not for the protection of the public defendant's argument least city of sirte conclusion that this court is providing law licenses to unqualified persons attorneys while an inactive status are encouraged to practice law  cleon reasonable to conclude as defendants have on page sixteen of their brief to this court that the court requires protection from inactive status attorneys he had encourages them to practice we were told by this court that words and phrases should not be construed in isolation defendants use the word an authorized in isolation which confuses the matter models rule seven five six with  by this court are no different from mountain banks imposters charlatans incompetence and lay persons unauthorized practice of law according to the nobody rules committed by unlicensed persons that's to say those unqualified to practice law who present the risks contemplated by the knowledge the rule and authorized practice of the law according to rule seven five six can only occur when an attorney removed from the master role practice law while holds himself or herself out as being authorized to practice law the individual in that case is a qualified attorney who can represent others without presenting those risks that have been contemplated by the  as demonstrated in brigham and is reinstated upon payment of fees and a prescribed penalty plaintiff has never been removed from the master role and there is no client but for the defendants claim to advocate plain meaning of words and phrases they clearly fail to do so with the phrases master role of attorneys attorney registration and disciplinary commission and clerk's office maintains the role of attorneys licensed to practice in the state by claiming repeatedly that plaintive is unlicensed or a non attorney or a lay person unless the court has any questions on these points or proceed to discuss just for the policy implications that would be raised by a decision against plaintiff you either all you had to do to change from inactive status lawyer would be a fee and then become an active or be on the active  off were not in play when this matter rose in two thousand and five but second of all somebody who transitions from inactive to active status has twenty four months in which to complete them seal the requirements but his status or her status is changed to active immediately upon the payment of a fee differential so you would not change my argument your own rule in favor of defendants will erode general confidence of the public in the fairly ministration of justice and competence of counsel equating inactive status attorneys with mountebanks lay persons and the such will be cold comfort to illinois citizens attorneys while on the net to status remain encouraged by this court to actively engage in the practice of law to meet the vast unmet in burgeoning needs of persons of limited means illinois most vulnerable and others will find it hard to place public trust in a system that easts these types of persons upon the the court's admonition diverting a proceeding at initial should only be done when no other alternative is possible is not an idle consideration announcement by this court that the alleged failure of  qualified licensed attorney to pay an appropriate fee results in the application of the knowledge you rule my kidney you hope to disappointed litigants and undermine confidence in the finale of judgments such avoid judgment may be attacked at any time years or even decades later defendants in this matter waited a full six months though the exact number is unpredictable the second district in britain acknowledged that there were quote many cases in which an attorney is not legitimately entitled to practice law because he or she failed to pay the requisite fees and quote forseeable eight there are many who would be interested in having a g c open its books on the chance to get back or have another shot at awards of six seven or eight figures or even to regain their reputation for example in the domain of medical malpractise alone powerful role the medical centers especially those perhaps that are selfish self insured who want to get their money back wealthy insurance companies would want to get their money back law firms and individual lawyers will promote this is a marketing tool or way to generate fees law firms and individual lawyers may consider it their duty to inform current and past clients of this new opportunity and individual practitioners who have been listed in the national practitioner data bank those people from the secure industry of edge once again them against them and i want to try to get the reputations back by having these pieces voided and extension of all this is the real absurdity defendants have argued that a fee shortfall in a criminal context as in bring them has no real effect in terms of voiding that outcome but if an attorney practices with a mixed caseload of civil and criminal cases that suggest if you hold in favor of defendants that some of those cases are going to be void and other cases will not and then would be an absurd outcome your honour's  court sorry fighting for defendants would place the state machine position of on the one hand having to explain to the parents of a criminal defendant that their child received adequate representation from an attorney not privileged to practice because a field legibly had not been paid well on the other hand having to explain to the same parents that this very same attorney is too great a danger to litigants in the courts to help in a civil suit involving that same child if defendants prevail a law students representation under rule seven eleven is less dangerous to the public and the courts than a licensed attorneys nor the rule reaches this  richest person is this course disciplinary rules and supervision cannot unlicensed persons its sanction is avoidance and was never designed or intended as discipline for attorneys admitted to practice by this court order should be characterized as void when no other alternative is possible and in the event of a supreme court ruling fraction by any licensed attorney there is an alternative that is the comprehensive scheme to regulate attorneys and discipline them for misconduct created by this court which is a r d c mechanism the no if you will by definition is outside this comprehensive scheme for licensed attorneys and removes them from beneath your honors for the reasons we've discussed and those in the briefs were submitted fairness demands and long requires a ruling on behalf of plaintiff and in answer to the certified question the negative this will be to fair and reasonable results in future would not be in the pro se capacity and you are already actually representing the state you need not enter because you as a as attorney it's a fair question but as the as  my was my understanding that i was doing nothing inappropriate there's been no claim of impropriety there's been no claim of fraud there's been no claim of prejudice in any of the matters so far i litigation the next question is one that i do need an answer to are you related in any way to the people who own messenger service not that i know of your honor but if i can for a windfall thank you thank standing on my argument today rightly or wrongly i think the first question that comes to my mind is we're not in trumpeting this rule for purposes of this case alone practice law you may not hold yourself out if authorized to practice law if that doesn't mean you're not authorized to practice law but it means nothing it means nothing if truly all you have to do is pay a few more bucks what's the point of the rule i sued to suggest that there is a point to this rule that when the court acted this rule it was with a recognition that someone who was not actively practicing law he is not the best choice to go in and start practicing for the first time and if someone is not actively practicing law then they can register as without having previously and well yes you have to be licensed for that purpose before you practice law to it really does make sense here in a number of circumstances and one that came to mind to me and i just like the rest of it is in two thousand and five an attorney that paid the full fee  you would have no problem with in two thousand and five and attorney that paid before they had attorney would have been allowed filed the instance of no one right if he had reinstate think that's part of mr apple but i don't know if he used that example but i don't think he did but i think that's part of the risks and you know that make any sense then make any sense that someone who hasn't practiced law for twenty years and  meaningless i think that yes he could have i think that this rule was an action to encourage those who are not actually practicing to come forward and put think it is honest because what i'm in this for this court to decide what has to be done in order to be reinstated i think that as yes yes time goes on and i think the mc of the rules are a perfect mc only requirement can be doubled or tripled for their next report and they have twenty four months in which to do that so they can practice law for two years up until that time sisters who didn't realize that he was not i authorized to practice law and they would have a benefit or should they suffer because of what he did and the answer to that the courts have said is no unless dismissed i think that what those with the course of going to fix option like frewen have said is that we're not going to enforce the statute of limitations we're going to let this case go on yes to those innocent parties because they you are the perpetrator now as it happens in this case dismissal means case hasn't been dismissed yeah all of this case is about is as a legal matter if you goes back quite a ways but i did spend six years in the trout work and him if someone comes in and is the sole proprietor or close family corporation for example and comes in with a lawsuit and signs their name on it well you can come in pro se but you can't represent a corporation either to your corporation or not rightly own corporation that i don't think and in those particular cases you know they get an attorney and they come back into you know they say you're going to need an licensed to you turning is he has a valid license but it's a license to practice in wisconsin do we inquire into his you know is he you know is he competent before we say you can't practice law here that's not you can't practice law here so why would we treat an illinois citizen differently from somebody from wisconsin who has a valid license to practice in you keep saying well he could have committed pig yes he could have done that any time before he filed the suit if you are to recall it he took inactive status almost a year before he filed suit ample time to have come to the court and said changed my mind it's only been nine months ten months now i want to go back on ethnicities would you have said fine probably some conduct or isn't it or i mean the concerns that are implicated when you have an unlicensed charm are entirely different than when you have a lawyer who is license not necessarily if you're talking about someone who is either voluntarily or in voluntarily no longer allowed to practice law so if anybody's if someone his has  that go get a new license he has that license he's been licensed to practice law and chooses for a period of time not ok so you explain for the get your purpose because to me the the meaning of the word previously means before you start practicing in this case if he had come in and resumed after status then he would before he started previous to you starting practice he would have been licensed to practice but once he went on the next status and this court said good call you can't practice then he is no longer previously licensed to practice you not only have to complete the current years but you have to you could have may have to be to complete up to three times the current years depending on how long you've been on your state two  and there they should be retried well that when the defendant without any limitation and no for this reason because the courts heretick in fact carved out many exceptions they have carved out exceptions when they say ok the attorney wasn't licensed and what he did is unauthorized but we're not going to punish the innocent plaintiff for that we're going to let them go ahead with their case so if they bring case under the sixth amendment which is all those cases deal with the course of said sixth amendment doesn't mean licensed by the local bar inactive status even on knowingly those clients and that attorney would have the right to file not necessarily because as i said that they call home because these are presumably defendants who have chosen this attorney but the difference is they have the right to effective assistance under sixty amendment of al in this case where we have to be you know what reason should we have for this is it because plaintiff well i didn't know and should not have known that he couldn't practice law don't think so at least that's what the appellate court said you know you say you're a licensed attorney and you say you're competent and one ish know the law you've got this rule that says you can't practice what are you doing practicing and so i answered my question i don't know what it's  believe that was his affidavit after he filed this suit is when he consulted with the a r d c and he already committed a violation he'd already appeared as attorney and before your motion or after your motion right before your i'm sorry i was your tires i'm sorry i don't always respond here's your position based upon what you've said that if the plaintiff in this case didn't know that their attorney was inactive sanction against him as opposed to letting it go through the normal way or d c processes well no i'm saying that any if you wouldn't even have to be an attorney wouldn't have to be he himself in the decided in the first district no you're saying if they're not innocent they they get punished the plaintiff has loonies but if they're innocent they do know is it punishment or is it enforcing this right this course authority to regulate the practice of entitled to what you have done is a nobody you're not you're not entitled to practice law now is they at fault of the plaintiff if there is a separate plaintiff many times it's not for example we have the case i'm way over my time many times we have the cases of of for example somebody who hires attorney and attorney and they're later expired and they don't know what you know do we say oh sorry but barred by statute of limitations yes as long as if there is no exception made to their now that may be for the for the circuit court to say you know is this a case of an exception i the appellate court didn't seem to think so under eligible and titles authorized on authorized the no three rule applies only to unlicensed persons i frankly believe that i think it's reasonable to believe that if you obtain a license to practice law hundred eighty eight at nine hundred eight in one thousand nine hundred eight is in fact previous to plain meaning of the words two thousand and five and i believe that people who obtained licenses to practice law obtain a license to practice law that seems self evident counsel mentioned just a few bucks if you just pay a few bucks what is the point in order to get your license changed from inactive to active status and suggested that cases should be nullified because of that avoid it has been happening in the criminal sector brigham is an excellent example of that and we're not voiding all those cases we have no minimum practice requirement in the state nor to maintain our license so people are is entitle to represent their parties or to well themselves not to the public well the statutes be serve the rule specifically says you're not entitled to are authorized to hold yourself there's a comprehensive scheme that this court has put in place that shouldn't attorney committed infraction of those rules he or she is going to be subject to the discipline of a r d c it's not that the attorney did something right is c complaints against you for using your license to practice when you're in status and that's it it's up to them and any attorney who commits an infraction of the laws is subject to the air d c and this court's regulatory scheme the other thing well many things but one of the other things is that council is talking about state of mind as if that makes a difference but no new rule only relates to an unlicensed person practicing law and creating inherent apprehension the reasons the lawyer in britain fail to pay are undisclosed state of mind they speak to the disciplinary action that they are d c intends to take but the normally rule does not because it is inher and the certified question is about the knowledge the rule and not rule seven five six which would be were a r g seeking kicks in one state of mind becomes a consideration we're no longer talking about an action whose risks are inherent which would be representation by an unlicensed person the fact that the fend downs consider state of mind means that the no t v rule cannot be applied once an inherent act becomes modifiable it can become justifiable and this logic is going to swallow the entire nobody rule so i submit that that is not an argument to enforcing the rule but actually getting away from the rule and i was not reinstated reinstatement is a specific procedure to which i was not subject all i had to do was pay the difference in fees that a r g c informed me i owed and i was immediately resume to active status