In the case of Cleveland Firefighters Assn. IAFF Local 93 v. Cleveland Dept. of Law, 2021-Ohio-399, the court held that the special master in a public records case did not err in requiring the respondent to establish clear and convincing proof nor does the assumption of attorney client privilege meet the level of clear and convincing proof.
Here, the law department asserted that the special master erred in finding there was no evidence records were protected by attorney-client privilege under R.C. 149.43(A)(1)(v) and requiring clear and convincing evidence of the privilege was an error.
The court disagreed with the law department’s argument stating that the requirement of clear and convincing evidence was proper, and evidence of an assumption of privilege is not enough to meet the clear and convincing standard.
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 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.