found two exceptions to a statute which otherwise frankly passionate sections of the defendant the apple e could point to no other option she found that the documents in question that were maintained by the account supreme court recognised common interest in one thousand nine hundred one the waste management i represented the insurers of haitian we are that the attorney for the insured which management had to turn over his clients  e had to turn over this file the judge has between the insurance company and the attorney hired by the insurer there was no real there was a common interest common interest was to defeat the claims claim the supreme was a relevant to the trial she merely said they were produced therefore there's expressway there's an uncontroverted affidavit from partner of the accounting that the strike the relationship it's in meeker visited some eighty nine year old woman in the mennonite hospital of central illinois she was not a member of his church but he would make pastore calls to patients in the hospital and during the course you got to know this  was deceased therefore he should be allowed to testify to what he was told during the past whole business with respect to all but this woman intended to do with a massive because he was the only one who could do that behind the lawyers to reverse the judgment of circuit court with respect to the order to produce these documents one thousand as well as the deposition the pamela worst miller was an employee of the doing their own typing and filing because nobody else can see the work or they could they can't be called on to testify on a clerical or not actually be employee of the form and that makes sense that's doing indirectly which you can't do directly so for all those bring this issue to the fourth district for review there are some disagreements that exist and the explanation that you've just heard about to go over than certifying financial statements rather in some sort of ways i legal advisory capacity assisting primarily with the alleged development much like or your would prepare for an oral argument in front of you that was a you know she could tell how thoroughly she had worked in studying the case  undue influence and the proper way is overrides in the existence of any privilege that might occur in this case whether something is made its announcement that it was referring to the production under that you know are the difficulty and making the waiver argument as if it wasn't known  and the executor filed a brief at the lower level that there had and that earlier production had been kept secret and so you have to get through about three hundred pages of briefing before you ever figure out that to support a decision to order the production and to open up to the discovery of the information of the accounting firm it's also where in the record they at their explore in the record if there really wasn't any substantive information being saw from her but rather information about timing and scheduling etc we know from the production that we've received from the attorneys for example that there was a critical meeting and the economic office and july of two thousand and five that had to do with the corporate affairs of a very substantial farm corporation existing in this case it was you know easily implied that letter the executor had approved that shareholders agreement and if a secular had a role in that we'd like to know what it is on behalf of the estate on behalf of as a representative of a few decisions now the concern about the application of section eight of the accounting act was raised in the and i have a copy of the case and i'll leave it with a timekeeper here but this is supreme court case that talks about what happens when there is a change in statute while there is a matter on appeal and how the courts  review should consider the change and i believe it's fair to say that you can consider that change as of are your decision to leave that change that controls the outcome in any fashion which was filed by plaintiff june brown the reason we are essentially what this faces about it's about discovery it's about seeking the truth of what has happened and it's about full disclosure   order i believe some of them are yes i would have to go back and read her answer but we we are interested in seeking the truth instance and likewise they chose the same relationship with an attorney with your hurry client privilege allows for just my reception it is so but it can't be exercised here because of mr result but on this issue you're on the same time on this limited issue same side yes my time is up thank you thank you executors to produce the documents to any one of the will because the trial court help there's no problem where there's an exception to the pro i don't think anyone in this case is seriously contending that the accountant client privilege does not rule in our favor and find that the accountant client probably is a complete bar to any production anyone in the world much like justice mills wrote for this court it's not a person opposite ninety eight zero up thirty three sixty four quote this court does not believe that all communications major clergyman are necessarily protected from disclosure under the illinois statute and we do not so all probably want to justice mills longest sentence sh heard what the trial court ruled and truth seeking form and that's what we watch alike these gentlemen said you've got to produce it because that's what discoveries all about well the fact remains there's a pretty there's a privilege recognized by twelve by judge rock except for tax returns and then through some subsequent motions and more subpoenas the issue of one back before judge robert that in april of last year she rule