“Councilmember Bobby Richards asked for a detailed explanation of the $36K and got none. Assistant City Attorney Jon Giffen explained that Mozingo feels strongly that the city does not have to reveal details about legal expenditures, based on a 2016 California State Supreme Court decision stating that public agencies can keep payment details secret, claiming attorney-client privilege.” Accordingly, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS et al., Petitioners v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent: ACLU OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA et al., Real Parties in Interest, (Filed 12/29/16), document copy is embedded. Author, CUÉLLAR, J. ; CONCUR: CHIN, J. , LIU, J. , KRUGER, J.; DISSENT: WERDEGAR, J. Selected excepts include: This case implicates both the public’s interest in transparency and a public agency’s interest in confidential communications with its legal counsel. The specific question we must resolve is whether invoices for work on currently pending litigation sent to the County of Los Angeles by an outside law firm are within the scope of the attorney-client privilege, and therefore exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act (PRA; Gov. Code, § 6250 et seq.). What we hold is that the attorney-client privilege does not categorically shield everything in a billing invoice from PRA disclosure. But invoices for work in pending and active legal matters are so closely related to attorney-client communications that they implicate the heartland of the privilege. The privilege therefore protects the confidentiality of invoices for work in pending and active legal matters.
CONCLUSION
The imperative of protecting privileged communications between attorney and client –– and thereby promoting full and frank discussion between them –– is a defining feature of our law. This imperative does not require us to conclude — as the Court of Appeal did here — that everything in a public agency’s invoices for legal services is categorically privileged. Instead, the contents of an invoice are privileged only if they either communicate information for the purpose of legal consultation or risk exposing information that was communicated for such a purpose. This latter category includes any invoice that reflects work in active and ongoing litigation. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal and remand for proceedings consistent with our opinion.
Filed
12/29/16
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS et al., Petitioners v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY , Respondent: ACLU OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA et al., Real Parties in Interest.
S226645
Ct. App. 2/3 B257230
Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. BS145753
REFERENCES:
Case Summary
Supreme Court Case:
S226645
Supreme Court Opinion:
[PDF] [DOC]
Court of Appeal Case(s):
Second Appellate District, Div. 3
B257230
Case Caption: LOS ANGELES COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS v. S.C. (ACLU OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA)
Case Category: Review - Civil Appeal
Start Date: 05/26/2015
Case Status: closed; remittitur issued
Issues: Petition for review after the Court of Appeal granted a petition for peremptory writ of mandate. This case presents the following issue: Are invoices for legal services sent to the County of Los Angeles by outside counsel within the scope of the attorney-client privilege and exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act, even with all references to attorney opinions, advice and similar information redacted?
Disposition Date: 12/29/201
Attorney Invoices are Subject to Disclosure under the Public Records Act
January 12th, 2017
Lozano Smith
No comments:
Post a Comment