holder privilege in Illinois

2020In Simpson, our supreme court stated that “[n]o case is cited to us that would uphold the privilege where the very holder of that privilege consciously, and by his own act, reveals or confirms to third parties the content of a prior privileged communication.” Simpson, 68 Ill. 2d at 281 . ¶ 40 In Gliniewicz I, we had only the State’s proffer and the exhibits: a copy of the consent form to search defendant’s phone and a copy of the task force report.

2020In Simpson, our supreme court stated that “[n]o case is cited to us that would uphold the privilege where the very holder of that privilege consciously, and by his own act, reveals or confirms to third parties the content of a prior privileged communication.” Simpson, 68 Ill. 2d at 281 . ¶ 40 In Gliniewicz I, we had only the State’s proffer and the exhibits: a copy of the consent form to search defendant’s phone and a copy of the task force report.

2015The court stated that it disagreed with the federal decisions and that it found the reasoning of the first such case to consider the holder of the privilege unconvincing. 2014 IL App (4th) 130421, ¶¶ 40-41 (discussing Dorfman v. Rombs, 218 F. Supp. 905 (N.D.

2015The court stated that it disagreed with the federal decisions and that it found the reasoning of the first such case to consider the holder of the privilege unconvincing. 2014 IL App (4th) 130421, ¶¶ 40-41 (discussing Dorfman v. Rombs, 218 F. Supp. 905 (N.D.

2014Champaign County, 117 Ill.

2014Champaign County, 117 Ill.

2021We are guided in our analysis by Dloogatch, 396 Ill.

2021We are guided in our analysis by Dloogatch, 396 Ill.

2021Merrilees v. Merrilees, 2013 IL App (1st) 121897, ¶ 15 . ¶ 21 Castlerigg argues that its complaint adequately pled a holder claim, which should be recognized in Illinois, as well as a common-law fraud claim.

2021Merrilees v. Merrilees, 2013 IL App (1st) 121897, ¶ 15 . ¶ 21 Castlerigg argues that its complaint adequately pled a holder claim, which should be recognized in Illinois, as well as a common-law fraud claim.

2015In none of the three cases did this assumption affect the outcome of the case. -5- ¶ 28 Thus, because this question has not been answered by this court or our appellate court, the doctrine of stare decisis plays no role in our analysis. ¶ 29 In FMC Corp., the appellate court referred in a footnote to prior federal cases that had “construed the accountant privilege statute of Illinois as having established a privilege which can be claimed only by the accountant.” Id. at 357 n.1 (citing cases).

2015In none of the three cases did this assumption affect the outcome of the case. ¶ 28 Thus, because this question has not been answered by this court or our appellate court, the doctrine of stare decisis plays no role in our analysis. ¶ 29 In FMC Corp., the appellate court referred in a footnote to prior federal cases that had “construed the accountant privilege statute of Illinois as having established a privilege which can be claimed only by the accountant.” Id. at 357 n.1 (citing cases).

2015In re Commitment of Fields, 2014 IL 115542, ¶ 32 . ¶ 25 The circuit court held that the accountant who rendered accounting services in his confidential capacity is the holder of the privilege and may choose to invoke it.

2015In re Commitment of Fields, 2014 IL 115542, ¶ 32 . ¶ 25 The circuit court held that the accountant who rendered accounting services in his confidential capacity is the holder of the privilege and may choose to invoke it.

2004Aranson, 140 N.H. at 370 , 671 A.2d at 1030 .

2004Aranson, 140 N.H. at 370 , 671 A.2d at 1030 .

2001Sassali , 296 Ill.

2001Sassali, 296 Ill.

2024Selby, 2020 IL App (1st) 181951, ¶¶ 179-80 . “[W]hen a party entitled to claim the attorney- client privilege uses confidential information against his adversary (the sword), he implicitly waives its use protectively (the shield) under that privilege.” Willy v. Administrative Review Board, 423 F.3d 483, 497 (5th Cir. 2005). ¶ 24 “An implied waiver may be found when the client asserts claims or defenses that put his or her communications with the legal advisor at issue in the litigation.” Center Partners, 2012 IL 6 No. 1-23-0901 113107, ¶ 66; see also In re Lott, 424 F.3d 446, 455 (6th Cir. 200

2024Selby, 2020 IL App (1st) 181951, ¶ 201 .

2021Walters, 2015 IL 117783, ¶ 47 . ¶ 29 We hold that the trial court erred in rejecting, as a matter of law, the Department’s defense to Holder’s claim for a FOID card.

2018App. 3d 103 , 60 Ill.Dec. 951 , 433 N.E.2d 1318 (1982), defendant acknowledged that "just like in Simpson , if the holder of a privilege (i.e., the defendant) intentionally reveals those contents to a third person, he has relinquished the privilege." (Emphasis in original.) Defendant then said, "[h]owever, in this matter, there is no evidence in the record of any such voluntary or intentional revelation by the defendant, and therefore the State's broad assertion does not apply to the case before this court." (Emphases added and omitted.) ¶ 11 Prior to filing its reply brief, the State filed an

2018App. 3d 103 , 60 Ill.Dec. 951 , 433 N.E.2d 1318 (1982), defendant acknowledged that "just like in Simpson , if the holder of a privilege (i.e., the defendant) intentionally reveals those contents to a third person, he has relinquished the privilege." (Emphasis in original.) Defendant then said, "[h]owever, in this matter, there is no evidence in the record of any such voluntary or intentional revelation by the defendant, and therefore the State's broad assertion does not apply to the case before this court." (Emphases added and omitted.) ¶ 11 Prior to filing its reply brief, the State filed an

2014In support of his argument that the CPA is the holder of the accountant-client privilege, Tibble cites United States v. Balistrieri, 403 F.2d 472 (7th Cir. 1968), vacated on other grounds, 395 U.S. 710 (1969), Western Employers Insurance Co. v. Merit Insurance Co., 492 F. Supp. 53, 55 (N.D.

2014In support of his argument that the CPA is the holder of the accountant-client privilege, Tibble cites United States v. Balistrieri, 403 F.2d 472 (7th Cir. 1968), vacated on other grounds, 395 U.S. 710 (1969), Western Employers Insurance Co. v. Merit Insurance Co., 492 F. Supp. 53, 55 (N.D.

2014In support of his argument that the CPA is the holder of the accountant-client privilege, Tibble cites United States v. Balistrieri, 403 F.2d 472 (7th Cir. 1968), vacated on other grounds, 395 U.S. 710 (1969), Western Employers Insurance Co. v. Merit Insurance Co., 492 F. Supp. 53, 55 (N.D.

2014Federal Insurance, 816 S.W.2d at 331 ; First Community, 663 N.E.2d at 222 ; Ernst, 381 N.E.2d at 899 .

2014Imwinkelried, The New Wigmore: Evidentiary Privileges § 6.5.1(a)(2) (2014). “[I]n the case of the accountant-client privilege, *** the holder is the client ***.” Id. (citing First Community, 663 N.E.2d at 222 , and Federal Insurance Co. v. Arthur Anderson & Co., 816 S.W.2d 328, 329-30 (Tenn. 1991)).

1992E.g., Georgia (Gearhart v. Etheridge (1974), 232 Ga. 638 , 208 S.E.2d 460 ); Indiana (Ernst & Ernst v. Underwriters National Assurance Co. (1978), 178 Ind. App. 77 , 381 N.E.2d 897 ); New Mexico (Ash v. H.G.

1992E.g., Georgia (Gearhart v. Etheridge (1974), 232 Ga. 638 , 208 S.E.2d 460 ); Indiana (Ernst & Ernst v. Underwriters National Assurance Co. (1978), 178 Ind. App. 77 , 381 N.E.2d 897 ); New Mexico (Ash v. H.G.

1990App. 3d 525, 535 , 332 N.E.2d 649 .) We are not convinced that the protections afforded by the attorney-client privilege will be unduly eroded by a failure to apply it in situations where the allegedly privileged documents or communications are put at issue by the holder of the privilege.