Brunton v. Kruger
2015 IL 117663
| Ill. | 2015Background
- Plaintiff June Brunton sued her brother as trustee/executor in a will/trust contest alleging undue influence and diminished capacity of their parents.
- The Krugers had provided estate-planning information to Striegel, Knobloch & Company, LLC (an accounting firm).
- Brunton and the Estates issued subpoenas to the firm’s CPA (Knobloch) for those estate-planning documents.
- One Striegel CPA produced documents to the Estates; Striegel refused Brunton’s subpoena, invoking the accountant privilege in section 27 of the Illinois Public Accounting Act.
- The trial court ordered production to Brunton, finding waiver and applying a testamentary exception; Tibble (Striegel’s lawyer) refused and was held in civil contempt.
- The appellate court vacated the contempt but affirmed the production order; the Illinois Supreme Court granted review and affirmed the appellate judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Brunton) | Defendant's Argument (Tibble/Striegel) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who holds the §27 accountant privilege? | Client is the holder; privilege protects client confidences. | Privilege belongs to accountant (statute protects the accountant from being required to divulge). | Privilege belongs to the accountant; statute unambiguously protects the accountant. |
| Does §27 protect estate-planning communications (scope)? | Estate-planning communications are not CPA work product; §8.05 limited to accounting/financial functions. | §8.05 list is illustrative; CPAs routinely provide estate-planning services and §27 covers confidential CPA-acquired information. | §27 covers confidential information obtained by a CPA during estate-planning services. |
| Is there a testamentary exception to §27 (allowing disclosure in will contests)? | The public interest in truth in will contests warrants applying the attorney-client testamentary exception to CPAs. | No; §27 is statutory and contains a single, narrow exception—courts should not graft common-law exceptions onto it. | No testamentary exception; courts will not read an exception into §27. |
| Was the privilege waived here? | Striegel did not consent to disclosure to Brunton and retains privilege. | By producing documents to the Estates (another party in the dispute), Striegel waived the privilege as to those documents. | Waiver found: voluntarily disclosing privileged information to one party waived the accountant’s privilege as to that information. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilkinson v. Service, 249 Ill. 146 (1911) (recognized testamentary exception to attorney–client privilege in will contests)
- Lamb v. Lamb, 124 Ill. App. 3d 687 (1984) (applies Wilkinson to disputes among devisees; attorney–client privilege limited in will contests)
- People ex rel. Dep’t of Prof. Regulation v. Manos, 202 Ill. 2d 563 (2002) (court will not judicially add exceptions to a statutory privilege)
- Waste Mgmt., Inc. v. Int’l Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 144 Ill. 2d 178 (1991) (discusses common interest doctrine and privilege waiver principles)
- FMC Corp. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 236 Ill. App. 3d 355 (1992) (Illinois appellate discussion of scope and treatment of accountant privilege)
- Dorfman v. Rombs, 218 F. Supp. 905 (N.D. Ill. 1963) (early federal case treating §27 as a privilege inuring to the accountant)