provides an independent basis for vitiating the work-product doctrine in this case. Local Rule 83.54.4 proclaims that, while representing a client, “a lawyer shall not use ... methods of obtaining evidence that violate the legal rights of [another] person.” By expressly referencing the rights of others, the Rule imposes one of many necessary ethical limits on zealous representation. Whether a violation of the Rule occurs, of course, requires the application of substantive law. In Illinois, a person violates the rights of another person by l'ecording a telephone conversation without the consent of that other person. See People v. Siwek, 284 Ill.App.3d 7, 219 Ill.Dec. 444, 671 N.E.2d 358, 363 (1996). Such conduct is expressly prohibited by the Illinois eavesdropping statute. See id. (<HOLDING>); see also Archer Daniels Midland Co. v.
holding statute that extended statute of limitations for certain criminal sexual conduct could not be applied retroactively to a prosecution commenced after the limitations statute in effect at the time of the alleged offense had expired recognizing that the 1994 amendment to the statute extended the coverage of the eavesdropping statute to all conversations regardless of whether the conversations were intended to be private holding that the title of the statute did not limit the reach of the statute holding that the language of an executed consent form took precedence over the alleged prior conversations between the patient and the physician holding that the language of the statute and the courts duty to apply the statute as written requires the court to interpret the statute to apply when the prisoner is sentenced without regard to the institution where the prisoner is incarcerated after the sentencing