When the attorney-fee billing statements with detailed information about the tasks undertaken by a law firm representing a city are intertwined with summaries of the legal work performed, the detailed information is not a public record according to a new ruling by the Ohio Supreme Court.
In the case of State ex rel. Pietrangelo v. Avon Lake, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-2974, Pietrangelo served a public-records request on the city of Avon Lake for invoices from a law firm for services rendered in connection with pending litigation between Pietrangelo and the city. The city provided copies of invoices with the name of the law firm, the general matter for which services were provided, the date of the invoice, the total fees billed for that period, and itemized expenses and disbursements. However, the city redacted narrative descriptions of particular legal services rendered, the exact dates on which such services were rendered, the particular attorney rendering each service, the time spent by each particular attorney on a particular day, the billing rate of each particular attorney, the total number of hours billed by each particular attorney during the period covered by the invoice, and the total fees attributable to each particular attorney. Pietrangelo at ¶ 2.
Pietrangelo filed a petition for a writ of mandamus requesting an order compelling the city to provide unredacted invoices. Pietrangelo at ¶ 3.
The Ohio Supreme Court held that the dates, hours, and rates not identified in the professional-fee summary were inextricably intertwined with the narratives of services that are privileged materials and exempt from disclosure.
The true reach of this decision is narrow. The Ohio Supreme Court previously held that itemized attorney-billing statements containing nonexempt information, e.g., the general title of the matter being handled, the dates the services were performed, and the hours, rate, and money charged for the services must be disclosed under the Public Records Act. Pietrangelo at ¶ 11. Yet, the Ohio Supreme Court prohibited the disclosure of much the same information in this case.
So what was the difference? In this case, Pietrangelo had pending litigation against the city. As the Ohio Supreme Court explained, the records that Pietrangelo seeks relate to the pending litigation between the parties. If disclosed, Pietrangelo could have gotten information that would be useful in his litigation strategy against the city, where typically any harm from disclosure of attorney-client communication is remote or speculative. Pietrangelo at ¶ 16.
To read this case, please click here.
Authors: Matthew John Markling and Patrick Vrobel
Note: This blog entry does not constitute – nor does it contain – legal advice. Legal jurisprudence is like the always changing Midwestern weather. As a result, this single blog entry cannot substitute for consultation with a McGown & Markling attorney. If legal advice is needed with respect to a specific factual situation, please feel free to contact a McGown & Markling attorney.