council as you know we're here because of a every dispute over disclosure of certain information interesting thing about this case is this court could actually resolve this issue without ever even addressing the case in the first round the court made a suggestion that when you have an equitable of stoffel claim the statute of limitations defense is simply not available it's counterintuitive to say that you could raise a statute of limitations d supreme court got that case back after a trial for a second time and they said couple things he said well yeah and with a real one it people thought we were saying that you could never possibly ra claim but what they did allow there was an instruction to the jury about what the statue of limitations was on the stop plate they said something that's extremely important and really cuts to the heart of our case here today and this was not mere dicta this was i think central to their decision they said in that case regardless of what the pla may have heard about the effects of drugs she was taking could have on her we believe that in the in this context she was entitled to rely on her physicians opinion and the defendant cannot avoid the stoppel by pointing to other sources the plaintiff could have consulted for information all right so let's let's break that down now think the case in a new drug doctors kept telling her that was simple to their decision at all i think they were simply saying the fact that other people told this lady there could be a problem even though i think even a chiropractor told her that there could be a problem or said look at doesn't matt a claim in which you're saying hey i relied on you you were my doctor or you were my lawyer you represented me throughout this nobody else did there was no concurrent representation there was no of reliance on anyone other than these doctors of continuous treatment however there was no dispute about that whether or wasn't that the case well the doctors treated her for a number of years or the t the moment that the trier of fact in this case decided that stone had no further involvement as counsel for your car then what would be the application of wh well he continued through the appellate process i mean that's that's a fact that's an admitted fact so we know that there was continuing representations for period of years so i think when the real does apply because there was continually representations a record of legal representation by stone so i think where the real does apply now let's let's say that after the arbitrator in this case said your case is not article and then mr graham decided i'm going to go get another lawyer you know stone lost this case for me at arbitration so i'm going to go hire somebody else to take it from here that would privilege of the attorney client privilege does the enter roger tori's see privileged communications i believe it does that isn't that the only issue that we should be determining here ultimately yes asked about in other words they're wanting to know who did you talk to about your case stones representation of stones conduct so they're asking you this did you see a lawyer it's who did you talk to about these things yeah let's take a scenario whereby somebody comes to be john doe he's got to legally and he comes to me and he wants legal advice about a topic that's a matter he tells me the facts and he says you know not based on what i've told you let me ask you what do you think and i give them an answer ever the answer might now yes my supposed to disclose to anybody the fact that he came to see me and talked about that topic what if a friend of if you're talking about your duty as an attorney right well they're not talking about that in the center right where they're asking for information regarding any consultation attorney that day and who did you seek to consult with you know there may not even have been a meeting between of the client and the attorney so obviously there would be no turny cli matters if there were subsequent communications i think that they're not asking about what those communications were here oh we're splitting hairs here ok when somebody comes in and talks to be about a subject now does that person have to disclose that and say i talked to a lawyer about a subject tickler issues pacific issue is that really any different than saying and here's what we've said to each other very different see that's the pro case now they're saying it's our intention to go further and ask those questions we want to know not only did you talk to somebody about this this issue but they've said as you pointed out this terrorist they're going to go further and they're going to get into the communications but we're not there yet and that's not meant to be rude our problem yet the truth but let's let's  the that this court finds that it's relevant whether or not he talked to somebody about this subject now where does that put plain what's the problem well and i and i know one jump and he had to think about this is going to happen but if the court says however graham you don't have to talk about the details of the discussion the only thing that's relevant well how about those with this information if this is a answer it would allow the other side to depose her fine and ask why did you go seek counsel that wouldn't invade the attorney if that wife so certainly it's not a foregone conclusion of that the ultimate end point is to invade the attorney client privilege there it simply establish a point from which the other side could ask questions why did you seek to of a talk with an attorney and that then would get to the heart of the the discovered will issue but if they were to ask why again if if that were to get in front of the jury if it forces the plaintiff to to have to wait the privilege because let's say the jury hears evidence that yes i saw lawyer on this day here's why ok what does it do to the jury if they don't hear more they're thinking in there something he's not telling us he saw a lawyer so if it lets the jur about what happened during the unless the plaintiff gives full disclosure of everything that was discussed so in essence he's forced into a position of of spilling his guts so to speak because the jury's going to august the i want to say seventeen representation for mr stone or for whatever other reason the point of all this is when you assert the discovery rule you open up everything that is  i'm not sure there is any privilege that continues to apply if your client assuming that the trial court was corrected august two thousand and eleven is the date of which the legal malpractise statute to your special operations runs if you're trying to argue it shouldn't because of whatever the discovery rule then i think all aspects of what your client did god i'm not going to tell you anything we talked about that doesn't work either counseling or many complain that your client was unaware this into october two thousand not correct correct and basically you're saying that so that's when the appeals are done the clock doesn't start to run why would it because there are damages are not certain until the appeals are exhausted is there a difference between injury and damages yes it can yes in the statute of limitations analysis but courts have said for a long time if you have a damages that are certain even if the amount is unknown the clock starts to run but until the appeals were done damages here we're not certain by definition no damages until people hear it speculative but that's disputed whether or not he made those misrepresented well would that wouldn't affect that well it would if it would affect whether or not your client re ms hamilton i'm going to interrupt you before you even start on that last point why is it relevant or how is it relevant to the issue of ethical stopover and when the statute of limitations actually whether the plane to consult with another attorney about either a my client's representation or at the underlying terminations proceedings directly goes to both our statute of limitations for answers to the discovery rule when he knew or recently should have known his cause of action against my client but also now goes to the defense which has been raised by the plaintiffs saying that we should be equitably to sack from ever even raising the statute of limitations and in order as your honor pointed out representations and in this case the plaintiff did actually consult with other attorneys to get legal advice of hey you know do you think i'm really going to win on this if these alleged misrepresentations from me which again we contend they were not but if the point of deadmeat was some absolutely and i think it is relevant because again the rules of evidence for one it's it's any and anything that has any tendency to make any fact of consequence more or less probable than it would be without the evidence it's very very broad and especially in this privilege that we agree with the trial court do we need to say anything other than the isn't it issue here which is requesting information about those communications the substance of them you're not there yet and so we're really not advancing the litigation here and puts us in a position if we do a don't you agree i would agree i think that right now the issue for the court is you know is the dates and the names of the attorneys consulted with regard to the specific subject is that privilege or not they don't think as well i mean i think it's relevant as happen your claim is no longer article because again if i can draw and analogy to lama one of the things the court in the second district focus on a month was the fact that beat the plaintiff several days after her surgery but the surgery in which they determined that was when the ne within a few days she requested all of her medical records and then it was later found out that she had asked her husband to take those medical records to consult with an attorney and that was the affidavit that they sought to have stricken with an affidavit from an attorney saying i met with the plaintiff's husband on this day and he brought the medical of limitations you've now put those communications an issue and the fact that you requested your medical records a couple days after the surgery seems to us to indicate that you then taking those medical records to an attorney is something justice is on a record number three zero nine there's an e mail from the plaintiff to that if i may requesting a copy of this case file and this is on september twenty third two thousand and eight now this is a few days after  the court rejected this argument because there is no continuous representation rule in illinois the court stated not only have we find a case adopting the continuous representation ruling illinois but our supreme court's rejection of the continuous force of treatment back in cunningham suggests the court is not ready there is no right to use her piece and since you raised that really gets to then write a tory that hasn't been asked yet but i do want to just point out that it's been pretty heavily criticized or at least the admiss were own siblings disputing whether or not the trust amendment was proper not and involved whether an attorney should be disqualified from representing the petitioner because that same attorney had actually represented the deceased individual now without getting into too many of that underlying intentions are now relevant to constrain this contract and that's really what andrea say the right was they were trying to get breached the privilege between the attorney and the deceased individual to try and ascertain or somehow define her intentions when when the contract provision was drafted and so and an adverse party was seeking to ok i want to get into that because then it might help me in my free to contact me the second district said going into that is not what an ad is she waiver is is designed to do and i actually think that  present in in real estate right because there's a contract claim and they're trying to get into discussions about how should we frame this contract whereas obama and it is in this case you have a situation where the plaintiff has made allegations that the hands of a to find an attorney who how are you supposed to bend to term and whether or not a vote the plaintiff actually relied on the alleged misrepresentation whether that reliance was reasonable or how could you ever really attempt to  the defense is trying to do in this case is is exactly what the right court was cautioning against this is why they didn't follow along that this is one of the tsunami it's not good criticisms of the lama there's never been a lot of cases that criticize it  one of which said that vice is not an issue merely because it is relevant and does not necessarily become you new shoes merely because the attorney's advice might affect the client's state of mind in a relevant and you claim that well we relied on stone stone for infant fact the evidence were to show that your client had consulted with a lawyer about this very subject and  a cause of action this is not what the discovery rules sense so you're saying that even if he knew or should have known because it was over with another lawyer who said yeah you should sue style if he still had some kind of or professional relationship regular individual you were my lawyer i realize you told me a b c and d i believe i trust i trust you like i trust my doctor when i go to the doctor if you tell me i'm going to rely on and if i do my reliance on you tube is the only thing that matters what about you miss hamilton's point that there is no equivalent to the continuous treatment doctrine that there is for medical services regarding legal services well are you asking me if there is such a doctor yes my she asserted there isn't what k stands for the proposition merits i don't have a cite for y like to submit a supplemental memo on this subject or well isn't that pretty important i mean after all if there isn't any they are human you just made has no basis and well we are alleging that all the way up lawyer you were you were the man and you were the guy i read that i relied on to lead me through this you were the person who was getting paid to do this i relied on you so what other people said graeme is not put in issue any discussions with any other lawyers it simply doesn't matter we're all says it doesn't matter these other sources don't matter and so for that reason