MA Public Records Search
← Back to Search

Hugh J. Gorman III, Esq. v. Office of the Attorney General (SPR 20170883)

Massachusetts Public Records Appeal · Agency won — exemption upheld · Filed 06-28-2017

ClosedAppealAgency Won

SPR 20170883 is a Massachusetts Public Records Law appeal filed by Hugh J. Gorman III, Esq. concerning records held by Office of the Attorney General, opened 06-28-2017. Type: Appeal. Status: Closed. Supervisor of Public Records determination: Agency won — exemption upheld.

Case Details

Case Number
20170883
Case Type
Appeal
Case Subtype
Initial
Status
Closed
Requester
Hugh J. Gorman III, Esq.
Custodian
Office of the Attorney General
Date Opened
06-28-2017
Date Closed
07-13-2017
Date Request Submitted
05-24-2017
Processing Fees Charged
0.00
Petitions Regarding Fees
No
Went to Court
No

PDF Document

Extracted Text (searchable & copyable)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor ofR ecords July 13, 2017 SPR17/883 Lorraine A.G. Tarrow, Esq. Assistant Attorney General General Counsel's Office Office of the Attorney General One Ashburton Place, 20th Floor Boston, MA 021 08 Dear Attorney Tarrow: I have received the petition of Hugh J. Gorman III., Esq. appealing the response of the Office of the Attorney General (AGO) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66 § lOA; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Specifically, Attorney Gorman requested records relating to potential conflict of interest pertaining to an identified investigation. In a response dated June 6, 2017 the AGO explained that it had identified approximately seven pages of records that may be responsive to his request. The AGO denied providing the identified records pursuant to a claim of common law attorney-client privilege. The Public Records Law The Public Records Law strongly favors disclosure by creating a presumption that all governmental records are public records. G. L. c. 66, § lOA( d); 950 C.M.R. 32.03(4). "Public records'' is broadly defined to include all documentary materials or data, regardless of physical . form or characteristics, made. or received by any officer or employee of any town of the Commonwealth, unless falling within a statutory exemption. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26). It is the burden of the records custodian to demonstrate the application of an exemption in order to withhold a requested record. G. L. c. 66, § IO(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3); see also Dist. Attorney for the Norfolk Dist. v. Flatley, 419 Mass. 507, 511 (1995) (custodian has the burden of establishing the applicability of an exemption). To meet the specificity requirement a custodian must not only cite an exemption, but must also state why the exemption applies to the withheld or redacted portion of the responsive record. One Ashburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 • (617) 727-2832• Fax: (617) 727-5914 sec.state.ma.us/pre • pre@sec.state.ma.us

Lorraine A. G. Tarrow, Esq. SPR17/883 Page 2 July 13, 2017 Attorney-client privilege In the June 6th response the AGO explained that "some of the records consist oflegal advice exchanged between the AGO and its client, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) in the course of the AGO's representation of the DEP" and "the remaining responsive records consists of: (1) associated attorney notes relating to that legal advice; or (2) communications containing legal advice exchanged between the AGO General Counsel's Office and [EPD]." Attorney Gorman requested that the Supervisor of Records review the withheld records in camera in order to determine if the attorney-client privilege applies, and if not, order DEP to provide copies of the records to him. A records custodian claiming the attorney-client privilege under the Public Records Law has the burden of not only proving the existence of an attorney-client relationship, but also (1) that the communications were received from a client during the course of the client's search for legal advice from the attorney in his or her capacity as such; (2) that the communications were made in confidence; and (3) that the privilege as to these communications has not been waived. Suffolk Constr. Co. v. Div. of Capital Asset Mgmt., 449 Mass. 450 n.9 (2007); see also Hanover Ins. Co. v. Rapo & Jepsen Ins. Servs., 449 Mass. 609, 619 (2007) (stating that the party seeking the attorney-client privilege has the burden to show the privilege applies). Disclosing attorney client communications to a third party generally undermines the privilege. Comm'r of Revenue v. Comcast Corp., 453 Mass. 293, 306 (2009). In camera review ofr ecords withheld under a claim ofa ttorney-client privilege G. L. c. 66 § 10A(a) discusses the ability ofthe Supervisor ofRecords to conduct an in camera inspection of records withheld on the basis of a claim of attorney-client privilege. This section provides in pertinent part: In assessing whether a violation has occurred, the supervisor of records may inspect any record or copy of a record in camera; where a record has been withheld on the basis of a claim of the attorney-client privilege, the supervisor of records shall not inspect the record but shall require, as part of the decision making process, that the agency or municipality provide a detailed description of the record, including the names of the author and recipients, the date, the substance of such record, and the grounds upon which the attorney-client privilege is being claimed. If an agency or municipality elects to provide a record, claimed to be subject to the attorney-client privilege, to the supervisor of records for in camera inspection, said inspection shall not waive any legally applicable privileges, including without limitation, the attorney- client privilege and the attorney work product privilege. G. L. c. 66 § 10A(a).

Lorraine A. G. Tarrow, Esq. SPR17/883 Page 3 July 13, 2017 As noted above, pursuant to the Public Records Law, in assessing whether a records custodian has properly withheld records based on the claim of attorney-client privilege the Supervisor of Records "shall require, as part of the decision making process, that the agency or municipality provide a detailed description of the record, including the names of the author and recipients, the date, the substance of such record, and the grounds upon which the attorney-client privilege is being claimed." G. L. c. 66, § lOA(a). In a conversation with a Public Records Division staff attorney, you indicated the AGO would provide this office a response with further information relating to the substance of the redacted information and the grounds upon which the attorney-client privilege is being claimed. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of this response without delay to this office at pre@ sec. state.ma. us. Sincerely, ~~ Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Hugh J. Gorman III., Esq.