A city received a FOIA request seeking copies of the
department’s settlement records concerning a class action lawsuit against a
named alderperson. In response to the request, the city disclosed certain
responsive records, but withheld a record concerning the settlement that was
signed by the alderperson and a city attorney pursuant Section 7(1)(m) of FOIA,
which exempts from disclosure privileged attorney-client communications between
a public body and its attorneys.
After the requester submitted
a request for review, the PAC issued its sixth binding opinion of 2025,
concluding that the department improperly withheld the responsive record
pursuant to Section 7(1)(m) of FOIA. PAC
Op. 25-006. In connection with the withheld record at issue, the PAC
determined that because the alderperson was represented by a private attorney, while
the city was represented by attorneys from its law department, the
parties had separate interests in the subject matter of the withheld record.
Because (1) no legal advice pertaining to the litigation or the settlement was
sought from or provided to the alderperson from the city attorney who signed
the record, and (2) there was no indication the city attorney was acting as the
alderperson’s attorney in connection with the settlement, the PAC determined that
the withheld record was not a privileged attorney-client communication under Section 7(1)(m) of FOIA.
Additionally, because the
withheld record was not a communication protected by the attorney-client
privilege, and related to the obligation, receipt, or use of city funds
regarding the settlement, the PAC determined that the public had a right to know the purposes for which public
funds were expended in connection with the settlement.
Post Authored by Eugene Boltnikov, Ancel Glink