In holding that invoices from outside counsel are not categorically exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Act, the Court emphasized that under section 952 of the California Evidence Code, the attorney-client privilege protects “information transmitted between a client and his or her lawyer in the course of that relationship and in confidence... and includes a legal opinion formed and the advice given by the lawyer in the course of that relationship.”
Jan 05, 2017 · In holding that invoices from outside counsel are not categorically exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Act, the Court emphasized that under section 952 of the California Evidence Code, the attorney-client privilege protects “information transmitted between a client and his or her lawyer in the course of that relationship and in confidence . . . and …
Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 185 Cal. Rptr.3d 842, 857 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015), the California Court of Appeals held that billing statements submitted to government agencies by outside counsel containing privileged attorney-client communications were exempt in their entirety from disclosure under California’s public records law. However, the California Supreme …
The principle of client-lawyer confidentiality applies to information relating to the representation, whatever its source, and encompasses matters communicated in confidence by the client, and therefore protected by the attorney-client privilege, matters protected by the work product doctrine, and matters protected under ethical standards of confidentiality, all as established in …
Jan 12, 2017 · A recent law.com story, “Decision on Attorney-Client Privilege Spooks Defense Bar,” reports that a closely divided California Supreme Court limited the protection afforded to legal bills under the attorney-client privilege when those bills are sent to government entities and sought under the state’s Public Records Act.
In holding that invoices from outside counsel are not categorically exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Act, the Court emphasized that under section 952 of the California Evidence Code, the attorney-client privilege protects “information transmitted between a client and his or her lawyer in the course of that relationship and in confidence . . . and includes a legal opinion formed and the advice given by the lawyer in the course of that relationship.” Based on this definition, the Court reasoned that “the privilege does not apply to every single communication transmitted confidentially between lawyer and client. Rather, the heartland of the privilege protects those communications that bear some relationship to the attorney’s provision of legal consultation.” Applying this reasoning to legal invoices, the Court explained that “while invoices may convey some very general information about the process through which a client obtains legal advice, their purpose is to ensure proper payment for services rendered,” not to deliver legal advice.
The ACLU of Southern California and a local citizen submitted Public Records Act requests to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and the Office of the County Counsel for invoices from outside law firms for work related to nine lawsuits alleging excessive force against jail inmates. The county produced invoices for three lawsuits that were no longer pending, with attorney-client privilege and work product redacted, but the county refused to produce invoices for the six lawsuits that were ongoing. The county claimed that the invoices for work performed by outside counsel in pending litigation were exempt from disclosure.
In an unpublished decision issued Feb. 6, the Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed a lower court’s ruling that a public agency had to turn over records for an in camera review, pursuant to the Public Records Act.
An in camera review allows a judge to privately review records in the judge’s chambers to determine if the records are actually exempt. It should be noted that this ruling is an unpublished decision and cannot be cited as precedent, but is instructive as to how the courts may view similar situations. In City of Hemet v.
Prior to this opinion, the state's highest court had never definitively ruled on whether a lawyer's bill, or at least certain information therein, is privileged. In reaching its conclusion, the court interpreted and applied California Evidence Code Section 952.
Although the long-term impact of the opinion is yet to be seen, the immediate takeaway is that attorneys may take some comfort in the fact that billing records are privileged during pending matters. But the durability of the privilege after a matter is concluded is now an open question.
The PRA broadly defines “public records” to include “any writing containing information relating to the conduct of the public’s business prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics.” (Government Code § 6252 (e).)
1. When a legal matter remains pending and active, the privilege encompasses everything in an invoice, including the amount of aggregate fees. 2. Fee totals in legal matters that concluded long ago may not be privileged.
Both the primary ruling that the invoices are privileged, and the exceptions noted by the Court, are significant to public agencies in California. Background. California law recognizes certain privileges that protect documents and communications from disclosure to third parties. The attorney-client privilege, which protects ...
The Supreme Court’s Decision. The Supreme Court’s decision required interpretation of the PRA and Evidence Code provisions relating to privilege. Evidence Code section 952 defines “confidential communication between client and lawyer” as “information transmitted between a client and his or her lawyer in the course of that relationship ...
Evidence Code section 952 defines “confidential communication between client and lawyer” as “information transmitted between a client and his or her lawyer in the course of that relationship and in confidence.”.