Thereafter, Mark appealed and this court affirmed the trial court's judgment. See In re G.A.K., 2014 IL App (1st) 141768-U. ¶ 18 On January 2, 2015, Attorney Tristano, on his own behalf, filed a memorandum of law and argument in opposition to the pending Rule 137 motions for sanctions against him. ¶ 19 On January 27, 2015, the trial court entered an order granting Kerinda's and Dr. Smith's separate Rule 137 motions against Mark and Attorney Tristano. The trial court specifically found that the issue at hand was not whether Mark or Attorney Tristano believed their allegations against Dr. Smith to be true. Rather, the trial court found, the issue was whether Attorney Tristano conducted a reasonable investigation of the facts prior to the filing of the motion to strike and whether, based on the then existing knowledge and existing law and circumstances, it was reasonable for him to file the motion. The trial court concluded that the claims made against Dr. Smith in the motion to strike "were made without reasonable cause, contained allegations which were known and should have been known to be untrue and