contingency basis and during the course of the representation you chinese were terminated and now we have a fifth that's the trial court abused its discretion in awarding fees in this matter when there was nothing in the record to show that the fees were reasonable in justified in the trial court the attorney had the burden to demonstrate that the value of the job but had the burden to demonstrate the value of the service is to show that the services were reasonable and justified the factors and elements under the fine of merit were considered just bills of the attorney there was no c v the nature of the case the trial court knew very little about the nature of the case because the case was actually pending in ohio and was transferred to illinois merely for the attorney's fees issue the disagree of responsibility we don't know what the attorneys did in this case we don't have an invoice we don't have any information about their time or their labor or their fees but what do usual fee for this case in the community would look like and what the benefit was to the client so the the attorneys failed to submit that information in their briefing in the trial court in the trial court could not have considered those very important factors that are that are consistently used in quantum arrow cases particularly here in illinois and i'm concerned before we get to the merits that were here a little bit early your brief indicates that judge johnson com you know sharon johnson coleman issue final judgment she issued an order and my concern is that order provided that there might be further proceedings concerning attorneys fees with respect to the part b i don't know if that's concluded or not the enhancement provision did reserve that issue however i would argue that the that this portion of the fees it is right for the court to rule line is the biggest it's the portion of the settlement that's been determined the order can be enforced the should be awarded please the the attorneys instead provided conclusory statements in their briefing without any affidavit without any invoices that they followed the they say that they communicated the terms of the settlement that they discussed the settlement  followed case management order suits the rather broad vague statements about what they did in the case but no invoices nothing about what's common in the community a second reason why this court could reverse this case is the breach of the attorney client agreement in this case that the there's there was some disputes between the parties about what the client agreement and sale so there was the written agreement that mclaughlin and then prior to signing that though there was an e mail clarifying what that agreement would be it was thirty five percent plus the cost and expenses and the cost and expens the important parts the cost to be in illinois under rule one point five c you have to explain we know the cost and fees that will be paid whether the client is going to be responsible for those fees either during the case after the case battles if if they're not going if they're going to be responsible even if the case is unfavorable to jump to the underwater point five that's an important part in the required to be part of the contract in this case gross had agreed to front the cost so that the litigation was pending the settlement kamen mr dobbs rejected the settlement and wanted to go to trial the attorneys in this case  the contract by stating they would not take the case to trial unless mr dobbs would front the cost to go to trial so because there was a repudiation of the contract the attorneys cannot be awarded fees case were attempting to get mr dobbs to settle the case by basically threatening that they wouldn't take the case to trial they were saying you have to pay this exorbitant amount of fees or excuse me in thorburn unmount expenses in order to get this case to trial we're not any expenses now if that e mail is not part of this contract then the client wasn't notified of expenses and the client would not wouldn't then the contract itself would violate one point five violate one point five actual issue of mr dobbs being able to take advantage of having claimed to be represented getting a higher amount within the n d l settlements and then keeping the money that for anybody else under the settlement would normally go to their lawyer certainly your honor i want to clarify kind of before i answer a question i want to clarify the represented versus on represented issue because that's certainly an issue it in the settlement being represented versus an represented as a term of art in the sense that someone is considered an represented if they don't have an attorney on a specific date so if you get an attorney later after that date you're still in represented if you terminate your attorney you're you to your point as to the aquittal bill issue of shouldn't possibly pay because he's getting a benefit and for the reasons that the counsel is strong arming the client into a settlement the potential violation of one if the court rules that the contract doesn't include that e mail the violation of one point five and then also for the breach of the agreement the the the attorneys when you bridge an agreement you don't get the benefit of that arraignment and so even so for that those reasons when the attorneys don't act in the way they're supposed to wonder the agreement and then they don't get their feet so mr dobbs gets more in fees that it's to make up for the fact that the attorneys didn't the court in its opinion were report did award and find that the amount of fees requested was reasonable the court stated the basis for the court didn't request us to provide any additional information but one thing i'll point out to the court that really wasn't argued in the briefs is that there's i think the court's aware this case arises out of the diffuse a s r multi district litigation settlement women involved something over seven thousand claims and the sudden agreement provided that people who never had a lawyer were to get a certain amount of money and people who did have a lawyer were to get two hundred fifty thousand dollars let certain amount of money was calculated by reducing the amount you get if you open the wire by making it seventy one percent well it turns out that the amount of fee that my now deceased co counsel and i had in our contingent fee agreement with mr dobbs is almost to the dollar the difference between what was agreed to by the settling parties is the amount that would be paid to represent or versus non representative turnus so we have some five thousand people who were receiving essentially the exact same services that we provided to m and so the fact that my years of trial experience my curriculum detainee the number of cases i've tried to verdict hasn't come into evidence all right we can go back and have a hearing and i can present all that well that's that's the problem what that's what reporters asking for that you do what you normally do and the question fees is put on a your background your qualities your the time you spend doing various things and then award the fees not just or  were not claiming anything for any work done in receiving the enhanced fees that's not an issue here is whether it's an issue or not here are you claiming and are you reserving your right to come back again to say we should get more fees so the basis is that the court the court is to be given not just a deference but i believe it's highly deferential standard when considering whether or not versus debt the underlying reason why the court did not award in a fee there was there was an illegal agreement between two attorneys the previous journey and the new attorney that was not signed it was just an oral agreement and it appears that the underlying attorney was withholding the turning over of the file unless the subsequent attorney agreed to give him a one third contingent fee clearly unethical clearly illegal and the court said no we're not going to allow enforce illegal contingent fee which asked for an award or in actually gave him assurances that he would get a fee that is in excess of the fees that were permitted under illinois in a medical malpractise case clearly overreaching clearly illegal in the court said because of that unethical conduct that it would not a word of any fees because like the attorney clearly acted unethically here there is  deserved he was on happy with the proposed settlement taking his case to trial in our opinion was going to be economically disastrous to him even if successful because expenses of taking a case trial continue to represent me until i find other counsel you'll see from the e mails or in the record i'm tempted to cooperate with the counsel that he did refer to me i was then told no no no don't give him the file hold the file back and i did that i continued to do everything i needed to do until he finally filed the appropriate papers to have me withdraw even then i wasn't allowed to just walk away i had to go to a hearing or i had to file papers and to go the hearing and the court allowed me to belief that because we didn't properly register him and because we were his counsel throughout the time that he was a registered and not yet and roll settlement clment that we  claimant participated in the supplement and mr dobbs is getting the part they award of two hundred fifty thousand dollars as you stated mr or where it was so myself should be entitled to the fee that was rigidly provided for in the contingent your honour's i would like to speak to one issue about the almost the same amount the attorneys are stating that they're getting almost the same amount as what what they would get you know the difference between what they're  and what other attorneys are getting in the on represented there they're getting at least six percent more intentional or more than that said so there is a difference between kind of what the settlement calls for is reasonable versus what these attorneys are getting so i  as to quantum or what that would be are so what does he settle for this settlement is the two hundred fifty thousand that shown in the record that it's the same there's no new settlement that was there's no enhanced figure there isn't there or so the the way the settlement works and i apologize i'm out of time but i want to explain to you correspond so this summit was set up that in everyone was offered the same settlement so in my brief i state that the settlement is a kin to a class action settlement it's in there individually settling so unlike a class action that you have to opt in but everyone was granted the base award of two hundred fifty thousand and then there's deductions from there mr dobbs does not the abducted auctions do not apply so there's the two hundred fifty thousand and that's what we're discussing here because the council just waived the enhancements and then there are the enhanced ment's it based on your age  the certain type of medical condition that you had there are different ways that your two hundred fifty base could go up now where that we don't have to worry about those now but he did get the two hundred fifty with no deductions so we're talking about two hundred fifty thousand dollars and then there is a class that there are excuse me the n t l fees there's a one percent deduction from that to cover the fees of the m t l litigation and there's also fees are not awarded to to the mclaughlin attorneys then there's a five percent attorney fees provision built into startlement as well so the two fifty is to fifty last one percent less five