work product doctrine in Illinois

2022July 1, 2014) (requiring “full disclosure” regarding relevant matters except as provided in the rules); Waste Management, Inc. v. International Surplus Lines Insurance Co., 144 Ill. 2d 178, 190 , 579 N.E.2d 322, 327 (1991) (“[T]he [attorney-client] privilege is not without conditions, and we are mindful that it is the privilege, not the duty to disclose, that is the exception.”). ¶ 56 We also note that case law and Rule 201(b) show that the work product doctrine applies to materials prepared by attorneys, their agents, and consultants, but not nonattorney administrators, as the Board wrote in

2022July 1, 2014) (requiring “full disclosure” regarding relevant matters except as provided in the rules); Waste Management, Inc. v. International Surplus Lines Insurance Co., 144 Ill. 2d 178, 190 , 579 N.E.2d 322, 327 (1991) (“[T]he [attorney-client] privilege is not without conditions, and we are mindful that it is the privilege, not the duty to disclose, that is the exception.”). ¶ 56 We also note that case law and Rule 201(b) show that the work product doctrine applies to materials prepared by attorneys, their agents, and consultants, but not nonattorney administrators, as the Board wrote in

2018The work product privilege "is designed to protect the right of an attorney to thoroughly prepare *618 his case and to preclude a less diligent adversary attorney from taking undue advantage of the former's efforts." Waste Management, Inc. , 144 Ill.2d at 196 , 161 Ill.Dec. 774 , 579 N.E.2d 322 (citing Hickman v. Taylor , 329 U.S. 495 , 67 S.Ct. 385 , 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947) ).

2018The work product privilege "is designed to protect the right of an attorney to thoroughly prepare *618 his case and to preclude a less diligent adversary attorney from taking undue advantage of the former's efforts." Waste Management, Inc. , 144 Ill.2d at 196 , 161 Ill.Dec. 774 , 579 N.E.2d 322 (citing Hickman v. Taylor , 329 U.S. 495 , 67 S.Ct. 385 , 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947) ).

2023Rule 201(b)(2) exempts “[a]ll matters that are privileged against disclosure on the trial,” such as matters subject to the attorney-client privilege, and, separately, “[m]aterial prepared by or for a party in preparation for trial” if that material contains or discloses “the theories, mental impressions, or litigation plans of the party’s attorney.” “The work product doctrine *** is designed to protect the right of an attorney to thoroughly prepare his [or her] case and to preclude a less diligent adversary attorney from taking undue advantage of the former’s efforts.” Fischel & Kahn, Ltd., 18

2022June 1, 1995) (citing Monier v. Chamberlain, 35 Ill. 2d 351, 361 , 221 N.E.2d 410, 417 (1966)). ¶ 62 Distinguishing the Illinois approach from the federal approach, the supreme court in Monier, 35 Ill. 2d at 359-60 , made clear that the phrase “made in preparation for trial” represented only those materials “which reveal the shaping process by which the attorney has arranged the available evidence for use in trial as dictated by his training and experience.” (Emphasis added and internal quotation marks omitted.) ¶ 63 In other words, the materials sought to be produced must have been created fo

2023Rule 201(b)(2) exempts “[a]ll matters that are privileged against disclosure on the trial,” such as matters subject to the attorney-client privilege, and, separately, “[m]aterial prepared by or for a party in preparation for trial” if that material contains or discloses “the theories, mental impressions, or litigation plans of the party’s attorney.” “The work product doctrine *** is designed to protect the right of an attorney to thoroughly prepare his [or her] case and to preclude a less diligent adversary attorney from taking undue advantage of the former’s efforts.” Fischel & Kahn, Ltd., 18

2022In General ¶ 55 “The work product doctrine *** is designed to protect the right of an attorney to thoroughly prepare his case and to preclude a less diligent adversary attorney from taking undue advantage of the former’s efforts.” Fischel & Kahn, Ltd. v. Van Straaten Gallery, Inc., 189 Ill. 2d 579, 591 , 727 N.E.2d 240, 246 (2000).

2022App. 3d at 433 (citing Consolidation Coal, 89 Ill. 2d at 109 , and concluding that an attorney’s memorandum was protected by the work product doctrine because it did not contain verbatim witness statements and was not “reviewed, adopted, altered or signed by any of the witnesses”). ¶ 80 Here, the District did not present any evidence that Knittle’s interview notes were not (1) verbatim witnesses’ statements or (2) adopted by the witnesses.

2015In Consolidation Coal Co. v. Bucyrus-Erie Co., 89 Ill. 2d 103, 109 (1982), our supreme court considered whether counsel's notes of employees and witnesses' oral statements, which were not verbatim and not reviewed or corrected by these individuals, were protected under the work- product doctrine.

2006Turning next to the issue of whether Bruening's notes were protected by the work product doctrine, it is clear that they are subject to discovery because they do not "contain or disclose the theories, mental impressions, or litigation plans of the party's attorney." 166 Ill. 2d R. 201(b)(2); Shapo v. Tires 'N Tracks, Inc., 336 Ill.

2006Turning next to the issue of whether Bruening’s notes were protected by the work product doctrine, it is clear that they are subject to discovery because they do not “contain or disclose the theories, mental impressions, or litigation plans of the party’s attorney.” 166 Ill. 2d R. 201(b)(2); Shapo v. Tires W Tracks, Inc., 336 Ill.

2006The work-product rule “protects from discovery the mental processes of an attorney in the preparation of his client’s case.” People v. Lego, 116 Ill. 2d 323, 339 (1987); see also People v. Knuckles, 165 Ill. 2d 125, 131 (1995) (Rule 412(j)(i) protects “the attorney’s right to the secrecy of the attorney’s notes and legal strategies”).

2006The work-product rule “protects from discovery the mental processes of an attorney in the preparation of his client’s case.” People v. Lego, 116 Ill. 2d 323, 339 (1987); see also People v. Knuckles, 165 Ill. 2d 125, 131 (1995) (Rule 412(j)(i) protects “the attorney’s right to the secrecy of the attorney’s notes and legal strategies”).

2000Our research discloses only one case, United States v. Walker , 910 F. Supp. 861 (N.D.N.Y. 1995), that compares the work product doctrine and the sixth amendment right to effective assistance of counsel as the proper basis to protect the reports and potential testimony of nontestifying, consulting experts retained by the defense.

2000The court noted that, while the analysis by the Mingo court under the sixth amendment "applies with equal force here," its own conclusion was "grounded in a practical application of the work product doctrine." Walker , 910 F. Supp. at 864 .

2000The court also held that the work product doctrine, which protects the mental processes of an attorney, does not apply to "[t]he verbatim statements of witnesses." Lego , 116 Ill. 2d at 339 ; see also People v. Boclair , 119 Ill. 2d 368, 375 (1987) ( Boclair I ) (work product doctrine is not implicated when the trial court, after excising privileged material in camera , ordered the defense to produce the notes taken by its investigator during interviews with witnesses that contained the witnesses' own words).

2000The court also held that the work product doctrine, which protects the mental processes of an attorney, does not apply to “[t]he verbatim statements of witnesses.” Lego, 116 Ill. 2d at 339 ; see also People v. Boclair, 119 Ill. 2d 368, 375 (1987) (Boclair I) (work product doctrine is not implicated when the trial court, after excising privileged material in camera, ordered the defense to produce the notes taken by its investigator during interviews with witnesses that contained the witnesses’ own words).

2019People v. Grier, 90 Ill.

1991See People v. Grier (1980), 90 Ill.

2006The work-product rule “protects from discovery the mental processes of an attorney in the preparation of his client’s case.” People v. Lego, 116 Ill. 2d 323, 339 (1987); see also People v. Knuckles, 165 Ill. 2d 125, 131 (1995) (Rule 412(j)(i) protects “the attorney’s right to the secrecy of the attorney’s notes and legal strategies”).

2006The work-product rule “protects from discovery the mental processes of an attorney in the preparation of his client’s case.” People v. Lego, 116 Ill. 2d 323, 339 (1987); see also People v. Knuckles, 165 Ill. 2d 125, 131 (1995) (Rule 412(j)(i) protects “the attorney’s right to the secrecy of the attorney’s notes and legal strategies”).

2005See People v. O'Banner , 215 Ill.

2005See People v. O’Banner, 215 Ill.

2000See, e.g. , Midland Investment Co. v. Van Alstyne, Noel & Co . 59 F.R.D. 134 (S.D.N.Y. 1973); Philadelphia Electric Co. v. Anaconda American Brass Co. , 275 F. Supp. 146 (E.D.

2000See, e.g., Midland Investment Co. v. Van Alstyne, Noel & Co., 59 F.R.D. 134 (S.D.N.Y. 1973); Philadelphia Electric Co. v. Anaconda American Brass Co., 275 F. Supp. 146 (E.D.

2006According to the appellate court, Walker concluded that “absent the application of the work product doctrine to consulting experts, a defendant’s preparation for trial ‘can only be crippled by the prospect of creating an unfavorable witness every time he attempts to obtain an unbiased assessment of the government’s evidence by consulting an expert.’ ” Spiezer, 316 Ill.

2006According to the appellate court, Walker concluded that “absent the application of the work product doctrine to consulting experts, a defendant’s preparation for trial ‘can only be crippled by the prospect of creating an unfavorable witness every time he attempts to obtain an unbiased assessment of the government’s evidence by consulting an expert.’ ” Spiezer, 316 Ill.

2022See Eizenga v. Unity Christian School of Fulton, Illinois, 2016 IL App (3d) 150519, ¶ 33 , 54 N.E.3d 907 (holding that letters, notes, and timesheets prepared by counsel prior to the filing of a complaint against him were not “created in preparation for any impending or pending litigation”); Center Partners, Ltd. v. Growth Head GP, LLC, 2011 IL App (1st) 110381, ¶¶ 21-22 , 957 N.E.2d 496 (concluding that materials “prepared to assist or guide” a party in co-purchasing a business were not protected by the work product doctrine when, at the time they were prepared, the parties were not involved

2022See Eizenga v. Unity Christian School of Fulton, Illinois, 2016 IL App (3d) 150519, ¶ 33 , 54 N.E.3d 907 (holding that letters, notes, and timesheets prepared by counsel prior to the filing of a complaint against him were not “created in preparation for any impending or pending litigation”); Center Partners, Ltd. v. Growth Head GP, LLC, 2011 IL App (1st) 110381, ¶¶ 21-22 , 957 N.E.2d 496 (concluding that materials “prepared to assist or guide” a party in co-purchasing a business were not protected by the work product doctrine when, at the time they were prepared, the parties were not involved

2019App. 3d at 509 (quoting Stimpert v. Abdnour, 24 Ill. 2d 26, 31 (1962)).

1982(Monier v. Chamberlain (1966), 35 Ill. 2d 351, 359 ; Stimpert v. Abdnour (1962), 24 Ill. 2d 26, 31 .) In the Federal courts, this material, generally referred to by commentators as “opinion” work-product (see, e.g., Comment, Discovery and the Work Product Doctrine, 11 Loy.

2018Sherman, 392 Ill.

2017Sherman , 392 Ill.