For concluded litigation matters, fee totals may not be privileged if they no longer reveal confidential details of the representation. For pending litigation matters, it held that everything in an invoice is privileged because even the fee totals can provide insight into an attorney’s activities and strategy. Specific to the case before it, the Court drew a line between pending and concluded litigation matters. Accordingly, attorney invoices could not categorically be considered privileged documents exempt from disclosure under the CPRA.Īt the same time, the Court recognized that the content of an attorney invoice can fall within the scope of the attorney-client privilege by providing insight into litigation strategy or legal consultation. Applying this rule, the Court reasoned that invoices generally are not issued for the purpose of legal consultation, but are only ancillary to the attorney-client relationship. The Court explained that an attorney-client privileged communication must be made for the purpose of legal consultation. The California Supreme Court disagreed with this bright-line rule. Redacted invoice trial#The Court of Appeal vacated the trial court’s order, holding that all invoices were confidential communications between attorney and client and, thus, were attorney-client privileged communications and exempt from disclosure under the CPRA. The trial court ordered the County to produce all invoices, including for pending matters, with only limited information redacted. In response, the ACLU sued to compel unredacted disclosure of all of the invoices. Citing the attorney-client privilege, the County disclosed redacted invoices for concluded suits, but withheld invoices for pending suits. The ACLU submitted a CPRA request to the County of Los Angeles, seeking attorney invoices from certain concluded and pending lawsuits. At the same time, the Court concluded that portions of invoices for concluded matters-for example, the cumulative amount spent on litigation completed long ago-may be disclosable. ) The Court held that the entirety of invoices for “pending and active legal matters” are absolutely exempt from disclosure. ( Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors v. Late last week, in a four-to-three opinion, the California Supreme Court found that limited portions of attorney invoices provided to public entity clients may be disclosable as public records under the California Public Records Act (CPRA).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |