Public Records and the Attorney Client Privilege

[Mark Kindt]

In response to Ms. Conant's request in another thread, I thought I would generally explain "The Attorney-Client Privilege".

This "privilege" is a legal doctrine embodied in statutes, cases and codes of conduct that protects the privacy of the communications between clients and their attorneys. The purpose of the privilege is to ensure that the legal guidance sought by a client and the legal advice rendered by an attorney is held confidential between them. There is a subsidiary doctrine with somewhat similar effect known as "The Work Product Privilege" that protects documents and drafts that are created by attorneys during the representation of their clients.

Lawyer Andy Reitz describes the intersection of the Ohio Public Records Act and the attorney-client privilege as follows, "Although the [Ohio Supreme] Court construes the Ohio Public Records Act liberally in favor of broad access and disclosure, the Court noted that the attorney-client privilege (which is governed by both statute and common law) constitutes a valid exception to the Ohio Public Records Act. The lesson, therefore, is that not all information relating to governmental business is subject to disclosure under the Ohio Public Records Act. The statute contains a plethora of exceptions and exemptions, including the attorney-client privilege." [Bracketed material added.]

[Bridget Conant]

Thank you, Mr Kindt.

[Mark Kindt]

It is my understanding that the City of Lakewood is denying many of Mr. Essi's public records requests on this basis and under other exemptions to the statute. Whether such denials are legally appropriate is the substance of the case between Mr. Essi and the City.

From my reading of at least one brief in the case, it appears to me that the City of Lakewood takes a very expansive (and, in my estimation, a legally defective) view of the scope of the attorney-client privilege and the other exemptions.

As I have noted in many of my other posts, the City of Lakewood consistently pursues a course of conduct that seems ensured to result in excessive litigation risks and litigation costs; all borne by the taxpayer or the City's insurers.