In State ex rel. Pietrangelo v. the City of Avon Lake, the Supreme Court of Ohio considered whether certain types of information contained on bills from a law firm an Ohio city engaged to represent it in a lawsuit were exempt from disclosure under Ohio’s Public Records Act.
The Court has already found narrative portions of an attorney’s bill that contain descriptions of legal services the attorneys performed were exempt from disclosure because those types of information fell under the attorney-client privilege. In this case, the Court found that dates, hours attorneys billed, and billing rates contained on the invoices also fell under the umbrella of attorney-client privileged information because the information is so linked to the narrative portions of a bill that it is also privileged information exempt from disclosure.
Here, an attorney involved in a lawsuit against the City of Avon made a public records request for invoices from the law firm the City was using to represent it in the lawsuit. The City gave the attorney the requested invoices, but redacted from each invoice: narrative descriptions of legal services rendered, dates when services were rendered, the name of the attorney performing services, the billing rate of those attorneys, the amount of time spent by the attorneys, the total amount of hours billed by each attorney and total fees for each attorney. The attorney filed a mandamus action against the City in the Ninth District Court of Appeals seeking unredacted copies of the invoices. The Appeals Court reviewed the invoices and ordered the City to release only a portion of the invoices called “professional fee summaries” which stated the hours, rate and money charged for services, and found that the remaining redacted portions of the invoices were exempt from disclosure because they fell under the attorney-client privilege.
The Ohio Supreme Court agreed with the Appeals Court and upheld its decision. In its decision, the Court distinguished the situation in this case, where an individual involved in litigation against the public entity was the records requestor, from a situation where the requestor was a layperson, finding that the requestor here may have tried to obtain information to give him a leg-up in his litigation against the City. Irrespective of this, though, the Court found that dates, hours attorneys billed, and billing rates not identified in the “professional fee summaries” were exempt from disclosure under Ohio’s Public Records Act.
The Court also upheld the denial of statutory fees and attorney’s fees for the attorney who filed the mandamus action because the City had a reasonable belief that the nonexempt portions of the invoices were actually exempt records.
This case is another reminder that public entities must carefully review and redact all requested records consistent with Ohio’s Public Records Act. Public entities must also be sure to have an exception or exemption that justifies any redactions or withheld records.