FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        Final Decision

                                                                (POST REMAND)

Lamberto Lucarelli,

 

                                Complainant

 

                against                   Docket #FIC 92-219

 

Paul M. Shapiro, Ralph E. Urban, Assistant Attorneys

General, State of Connecticut, Office of the Attorney General

and State of Connecticut, Office of the Attorney General,

 

                                Respondents                        January 24, 1996

 

                The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on December 21, 1992, at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.

                On March 1, 1993 the Commission issued its final decision in the matter which the complainant appealed to the Superior Court.  On March 29, 1995, the Court sustained the appeal and remanded the case to the Commission to conduct an in camera review of all documents that the respondents withheld under claim of privilege pursuant to 1-19(b)(10), G.S., and then to render a new decision.  Accordingly, pursuant to the Commission's order the respondents submitted the documents to the Commission on June 9, 1995.

 

                Following an in camera review of the documents and after consideration of the entire record, the following facts are found and conclusions of law are reached:

 

                1.  The respondents are public agencies within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.

 

                2.  By letter dated June 2, 1992, the complainant requested from the respondents copies of all records concerning the complainant, or any of his legal proceedings, which have not been previously provided to him, and not already a part of the public record in any federal, state superior court, or state administrative proceedings.

 

                3.  By letter dated June 10, 1992, respondent Urban informed the complainant that the Office of the Attorney General had no records which were responsive to the complainant's request.

 

Docket #FIC 92-219                                             Page 2

 

                4.  By letter of complaint dated July 1, 1992, and filed with the Commission on July 2, 1992, the complainant appealed to the Commission requesting that the Commission determine:

 

                                a.  whether the respondents have in their possession records not previously provided to the complainant, and which are not part of the public record of any legal proceedings in which the complainant is involved; and

 

                                b.  If such records exist, whether any exemption claimed by the respondents for nondisclosure is valid.

 

                5.  It is found that the respondents are in possession of office memoranda (hereinafter "memoranda") which are responsive to the complainant's request.

 

                6.  It is found that the memoranda are public records within the meaning of 1-18a(d) and 1-19(a), G.S.

 

                7.  Section 1-19(b)(10), G.S., exempts from required disclosure "communications privileged by the attorney-client relationship."

 

                8.  Connecticut's common law rule of attorney-client privilege is set forth in Ullman v. State, 230 Conn. 698, 710-714 (1994).

 

                9.  Having conducted an in camera review of the content of the memoranda, it is found that the records consist of twenty-six (26) pages.

 

                10.  It is found that the following records are privileged by the attorney-client privilege and therefore exempt from public disclosure under 1-19(b)(10), G.S.:

 

                a.  A one-page memorandum dated October 8, 1992;

 

                b.  A four-page memorandum dated December 26, 1991; and

 

                c.  A letter dated January 2, 1991.

 

                11.  It is found that the remaining memoranda are alomost entirely exchanges between attorneys of the respondent Office of the Attorney General.  The other remaining documents are informal communications between what appears to be staff of the respondent Office of the Attorney General, with the exception of one record which is a communication directed to the respondents but not generated within the respondent's office.

 

Docket #92-219                                       Page 3

 

                12.  It is found that the records identified in papagraph 11, above, do not constitute communications which were made in confidence between client and attorney.

 

                13.  Further, it is found that disclosure of the contents of the records identified in paragraph 11, above, would not reveal client confidences or confidential facts.

 

                14.  It is therefore concluded that the records identified in paragraph 11, above, are not communications protected by the attorney-client privilege pursuant to 1-19(b)(10), G.S.

 

                15.  Consequently it is concluded that the respondents violated 1-19(a), G.S., when they failed to disclose those records identified in paragraph 11, above.

 

 

                The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:

 

                1.  The respondents shall forthwith provide the complainant with a copy of the records, more fully described in paragraph 11 of the findings, above.

 

                2.  Henceforth, the respondents shall strictly comply with the provisions of 1-19(a), G.S

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of January 24, 1996.

 

                                                                                             

                                                                Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                                                Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 92-219                                             Page 4

 

PURSUANT TO SECTION 4-180(c), G.S. THE FOLLOWING ARE THE NAMES OF EACH PARTY AND THE MOST RECENT MAILING ADDRESS, PROVIDED TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION, OF THE PARTIES OR THEIR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.

 

THE PARTIES TO THIS CONTESTED CASE ARE:

Lamberto Lucarelli

21 Howard Street

Old Saybrook, CT 06475

 

Paul M. Shapiro, Ralph E. Urban, Assistant Attorneys General, State of Connecticut, Office of the Attorney General

c/o Ralph E. Urban, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General

110 Sherman Street

Hartford, CT 06105

 

                                                                             

                                                Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                                Acting Clerk of the Commission