In the case of State ex rel. Ames v. Brimfield Twp. Bd. of Trs., 11th Dist. Portage No. 2019-P-0018, 2019-Ohio-5311, an Ohio appellate court held that conversations with a public body’s legal counsel do not alone constitute a sufficient reason for a public body to enter into executive session under Ohio’s Open Meetings Act (R.C.121.22).
In this case, a plaintiff challenged a township board for failing to comply with Ohio’s Open Meetings Act (R.C. 121.22) when the township board entered into executive sessions without specifying a specific reason under R.C. 121.22(G). The lower court ruled that the executive sessions that the plaintiff challenged under Ohio’s Open Meetings Act (R.C. 121.22) were protected under the common law attorney-client privilege. The plaintiff appealed that ruling.
The Ohio appellate court disagreed with the township board and held that common law attorney-client privilege does not constitute a reason to enter into executive session because to allow common law attorney-client privilege to constitute a reason to enter into executive session would make the statutorily enumerated reason to enter into executive session under R.C. 121.22(G)(3) for “conferences with an attorney for the public body concerning disputes involving the public body that are the subject of pending or imminent court action” meaningless.
To read this case, click here.
Authors: Matthew John Markling and the McGown & Markling Team.
Note: This blog entry does not constitute – nor does it contain – legal advice. Legal jurisprudence is like the always changing like the 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.