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