our fourth case for this morning is fifth third mortgage company against iraq housman in the response of there was a new issue injected into this appeal and so i believe we did not do it we have not waived that issue and some so the question our threshold issue here is heiferman recognize that the illinois law does recognize a cause of action for aiding and abetting a tort other has to be an underlying tort it's there is no independent action for aiding and abetting existence of eating in the betting toward cause of action i cite stoller b johnson another case recent cases that recognize that there is a court there is a cause of action for aiding and abetting a tort under illinois law it's a separate question from findings and he finds that mr kaufman served on his own account you know as an individual perhaps wearing a different hat from his hat as an attorney or his hat as a member of the l l c is engaged in conduct designed to enrich him personally isn't gauged in conduct it's helping the this group carry forward with their fraudulent transactions with respect to these buildings and condo units that he knows perfectly well that you can't be the primary resident of six or seven units or the same time and all sorts of things but essentially that he's acting on his own account and this is not the simple in the real rule fifty nine motion but the findings of fact the conclusions of law say something else he found mister coffman a dual liability one has a member owner of traditional title the title company and as the seller report to fifth third substantially assisted the mortgage fraud so that this is way this already goes well beyond let me give you this hypothetical just shown why i think it does this is not an instance of being helped liable sole because you're a member of n l l c that the example i would give suppose this l l c had two members should one of them lived in chicago and the other one lived down in texas and the the person in texas just sits there and lives their life in texas isn't involved at all but is fraud the one in chicago is engaged in facilitating fraudulent transactions you're not going to hold the texas person liable merely because that individual happens to be a member of the l l c that i don't that's what the illinois statutes getting at near membership doesn't mean that you were engaged in any particular activity well i think i'm and i say das three year old and there was a case where the member of the old see it was a and they're the courts they're the the plaintiffs argued that they argued that mr that mr yale would be liable if he acted individually and that defrauding while being a member should not provide protection but he was doing this as an individual not as a member of the yellow sea and that argument was rejected by dusty yale because under the under the will see act at there's a section ten ten deep and liability on your client because he was a member he found your client personally liable because of the actions that he took and didn't take that is very different by not alerting or  for as long as they're a member of an l l c they can't be liable for even the most grotesque frauds as long as these frauds seem to be done in part in the name of the l o l see that seems like a illinois legislature never came to or they wouldn't have used that language solely because of your membership however how is it that you're not responsible for your own actions when i reading this opinion was it was for what he did or he didn't do as a member of the l c why when it wasn't because of the l l sees liability it was because of his own personal actions that he nellie didn't say i'm finding the l l c it liable for this amount and because you're a member you're liable to he said you're liable because here all the things you did and you didn't personally do he yellow sea liable because the closers mr lee and mr martinez and mr kaufman did not suspend or notify fifth third and that's why traditional title was found liable these these were employees kaufman was a member owner of the company so that's what his liability would to the district court said by failing to fulfill the duties of traditional title as an owner employer employee and that was the basis of that liability six through ten were had the traditional title was not involved it was just his role as an attorney when i started saying just a little bit for  and you can sit at counsel table mr darcy when we just jump in where you left off there the fact that's being omitted from that description of what happened was that mr  amendment and the day that he got sentenced we basically depose him like the next day and that's the testimony that came into the case and that's the testimony that shows that mr kaufman knew from the get go that the entire operation was a fraud and it's that testimony th the district judge credit which which is really the final nail in the coffin for mr kaufman you know no pun intended importantly you know we did not enter just the new theory of liability in the closing argument with our i mean it just goes right from the get go all the way through and i can direct you to specific pages it's helpful it starts on page five we say that it it's a massive scheme where a bunch of defendants got together the fact that he knew that the proceeds that he was receiving himself were the proceeds of a fraud in other words let's say we all get together right now i knew the price has fallen ian the applications were phony and everything exactly and you know if we if we got together right now and half the room said they're going to rob a bank and i said ok when you get back from the bank i'll draw up a document that where we all share the proceeds and by the way normally i charge five hundred dollars for that but this time  old high school graduates working as cocktail waitresses in bars in chicago at the start of got less than forty thousand dollars she received almost a four year sentence mr  received one point eight million dollars of fraudulent proceeds gets eighteen months in prison i mean kaufman for some reason doesn't get indicted even though he's in the midst of it i mean and and that the testimony that's not you know highlighted by the judge was that the culprit actually arranged those subsequent closings in other words he structured that that idea that high point developers would receive those huge payouts remember it's totally unclear that high investigation and concluded that it was a massive fraud and then they tried to hide that report from us you know there's this this case is a small novel but you'll see in the record that they were sanctioned ten thousand dollars and that was because they had to report we subpoenaed employee that did the report who was a former employee lived in florida and when that person had left his job he had taken his investigation with him and so he produced the investigation at his deposition that's the only reason  introduced the aiding abetting us as to show that fraud in compass is that under illinois law and there's no question that we played those facts all the way through the complaint so this notion that somehow they got sandbagged that the eleventh hour is completely on january second two thousand and nine you had a call from mr ahmed to defend the development of forty seven twenty five south michigan from a housing inspection and and that's not what the scheme was that that whole live pretends scheme was to flip the properties this was not a flipping property this was a smash and grab like as soon as those deals closed that was the scam because these were all first payment details so by that time january second two thousand i'm all those loans at forty seven twenty nine south michigan that's twenty seven loans they had they were all at the fall so there must mean that in the record indicates that the timing had to be careful to make sure that the credit agencies didn't catch up with these applications and need for third have had some i mean i think some ability to monitor bonds at a particular property as well well i think i mean if they're all suddenly defaulting just fifth third would take so it takes a long time to piece it all together because i don't think they categorize their their loans by address so then you start looking at the broker and then you start seeing that the brokers are the same brokers and then you start you start getting into it you have to on peel the layer of the onion to dampen the system when the loans are taken out in the first place to identify them it's all coming from the same property many of them the same individuals well remember that for some twenty five w had two maybe we had three we may have had want to fund their own as well but that we didn't find out about until late so we only really get to the twenty seven but that the trick is that it's the lean filing at this services are picking file that's that's what's triggering the market on the borrowers credit report so it's just it's just they don't they don't do that on a daily basis i don't know if they do it weekly or monthly but but that's that's what the lag time this that's why that that's why if the other element of forty some twenty five it's not emphasizing the record those units were got it they were never finished there's no actually no condo there so if you want you walk down there it would just be like a constructions so that  appraisers were in on the fraud so they appraised those units out yeah at the price even though they were never finished so that's that's that's that's how extensive the fraud so i think we describe it as a ballet and i think that's accurate that like that he has no e mails he has no client files has no conflict with waivers for his first clients he has nothing so the idea that that that he didn't hide all that information from the court predicted that the illinois supreme court would recognize such a tort and both times that there is obviously this isn't quite on point but even the ethical rules of the bar understand that attorneys might be involved in a crime or a fraud or that a client's going to i guess you have to say well maybe that allows them to breach the lawyer client confidentiality but that's where it stops rule one point six see i see this as a lawyer must must disclose or and for