as part of an official investigation of possible misconduct by city employees in the awarding of a sole source contract the corporation counsel who is the defendant in the lawsuit place the every document that was requested however in her decision making power she left out what she believes are privileged documents that's correct your  inquest by besting independence concerning the independence but this inspector general doesn't have the power to bring any action whatsoever of any kind the most that he can do is report the mayor and turn over everything he has to the state's attorney or the u s attorney or the attorney general the state don't like is that correct that's correct so don't you think you're  tating it by saying that this stitch somehow gives him because he has independence he's not required or that he has some sort of prompting an attorney client privilege  right the mayor and the corporation council and other city officials to conduct investigations that would be seen by the public as responsible and fair and most importantly independent office with so it's not just the inability of the inspector general to prosecute you're absolutely right he can turn over reports but the ability to independently investigate and prepare those the appropriate forum for the inspector general under these circumstances is such that the court could appoint an attorney or the inspector general in this instance makes it an even stronger case than the one here involving the government or the application of the privilege the reason is that there are multiple reasons why the existence of the and save some time for  morning your honor to me please the court every single day city departments and employees consult with the corporation counsel's office so that they may be there working compliance was all of the myriad laws and regulations that govern the city's work because the privilege enables the corporation counsel to provide them with fully informed legal advice it underlies the very functioning of government this morning i will explain that nothing about the inspector general's office prevents the corporation your honor in this case i would actually submit that that issue has been waived we have maintained when when the documents were redacted a privilege i was submitted no issue was raised in the circuit court regarding whether the reactions were appropriate on appeal we have asserted that the inspector general does not dispute that the documents were properly assuming the privilege can be invoked that they were perhaps that it was properly applied here and even now i don't understand him to be requesting any sort of relief or better so i don't know what we don't have to agree with anything that would you say that the issue h right no request was made he said there was no right to seek an attorney and that the privilege does exist and she said that she did so she concluded that there was a privilege but she also said there was no right to seek an appointment of an attorney right and once there was the conclusion that there was the privilege the case the parties treated the cases over in the complaint was dismissed because there was no dispute about whether assuming it could be invoked at all whether the redactions were appropriate let me ask you this the inspector general claims that they're trying to fight corruption and the corporation council does have an obligation to conduct all of the city's law business and to represent the interests of the city in litigation so her preacher castle also to represent the people of the city of chicago it represents the city of chicago as a governmental entity in litigation against any of its employees or the city itself certainly the corporation council doesn't doesn't wish to you know minimize the problem problems that the inspector general yeah well the problem i have is this if you have an inspector general and he calls your office and says i want these documents i need to look at these packages to see if no allegation here of the earth and all there is no there was no waiver that the corporation counsel believes that there are privileged materials here that do not have to be turned over that that's true although there's also no allegation that consent was that her stock from the inspect by the as well can you argue that there was some sort of you know there was no exhaustion of of remedy here ever so no not at all your honor but i'll let me ask you this the judge who heard this matter concluded that there was a conflict between the corporation counsel in its effort to exercise  and the inspector general in his request it actually it was her request initially to receive certain documents and the court stated that there was a conflict between knowing the act and also didn't the inspector general asked the court at that point to consider the appointment of counsel that was representing the inspector general well certainly as we explain in our brief there wasn't an explicit request made the inspector general mentioned that the court has the power or it's have the power to do that and we but we do argue and explain in our brief that because the corporation counsel that there's no such parallel statute as a with the state's attorney and the attorney general that would allow for the courts to intervene and appoint counsel as we also argue because this lawsuit is by one city official against another what's the difference between this case of the public defender the part of the public defender sued the county board what's the difference the public defender in fact is not simply an arm of county government like the inspector general it and why do you say that what do you base that on that the public defender isn't an arm of the county government because when in fact the cook county public defender is indeed the cook county public defender it is represent and for the most part well i mean isn't the corporation counsel and the inspector general and they paid by the city of right by the same entity yes but the cook county public defender isn't paid the court noted that the statute described immunity for the public defender and also discussed indemnification we don't have anything like that here indicating any capacity independent capacity of the suit by the explicit affirmative grant of power there is language in the inspector general's ordinance that says after seven days he may take no action until seven days a pass he may take no action but even allowing for the fact that it says he may take action to is explicitly and exclusively in charge of all of the city's legal affairs did the inspector general go to the corporation counsel and request that the documents be tendered in the fashion without any privileged materials that request was made but then he went off and filed a lawsuit well did the corporation counsel him back refused to tender those documents to the inspector general without media correct so what is your suggestion that he do at that point go ask at that point our position is that his recourse if this is to ask for attorney to be appointed to submit that that authority is included in the provision that puts the corporation council in charge of all of the city's law business and charge of representing the city's rights an obligation in any well  there was a conflict as the court noted there was then why didn't the corporation counsel's office appoint council i don't believe any request was ever made and certainly there's no allegation that the request was made to the lawsuit against another city official or department or the city itself where the city is suing the city itself has not won over which the courts have jurisdiction but that doesn't mean it counsel couldn't have been appointed you know for any o is there any public policy good or bad that would come from at this issue that the inspector general can never sue the corporation counsel's office for back humans or  because some of the cases described i believe it's the suburban are only but i may have them right there when you have city departments simply going off on their own and filing official capacity suits without anybody a monitoring matter or having any say in what's going with the corporation council have pointed to someone i mean what difference does it make to this point since there is an attorney that's representing the inspector general to try to receive or get these documents for purposes of an investigation a legitimate investigation is that we've come to stump with the statute that creates the inspector general so if the question is would would a council have been appointed e and for that reason it does make a difference but if the court were to go on and reach the issue of privilege we urge the court to affirm on that ground as well  the attorney client privilege has been applied in across the board in all civil cases involving municipal corporations and even in cases involving allegations that there spence corruption or misconduct in a governmental body and to address your honor's concerns we alluded to earlier it's important to remember that the privilege invocation of the privilege which undisputedly applies to government attorneys and perhaps we can talk about whether substance should be written that just takes away a single piece of evidence which is what the client said to his or her or its lawyer that doesn't mean that the the facts themselves underlying facts are not privileged so the inspector general like any other body that investigates or prosecutor does anything else can talk to witnesses can get documents can difference what makes it different that here the court was asked in a declaratory judgment case to determine whether or not the privilege that was there's a conflict between two de those entities are according to that court's conflict and it is i don't doubt that the two agencies here have a conflict in the sense  that they're trying to advance different interests however that conflict because it's within two branches of city government they're paid by different than are paid by the same entity that somehow makes it out of the core and more he may well need to have some political independence but there's no legal free standing at the mayor to decide whether or not approve lucas's the mayor if the if the mayor's and the control group and he is part of the risk communications he could waive the privilege go to the mayor decide whether a party has accurately exercised the right to an attorney client is that there is no just disciplined matter because one department can proceed against another department of the city of shit but the real issue here is a privilege that was exercised by the corporation counsel and i'm trying to find out when the trial court issued it there was a conflict where that dispute should be res your position is that the only place that that can be resolved is in a building apart from the circuit court in the in the offices of the corporation counsel is that really what your position is that that is our position that this is an internal conflict that should be resolved by the hand you are leave that's good public policy or bad public policy we certainly believe that allowing the government to exercise the privilege and resolving its own internal disputes is good public policy because we have departments and employees need to be able to consult really well what have the department the corporation council is exercising the privilege according to another party improperly or unfairly where should that dispute be resolved well in this case when when when we submit that when the dispute involves when it's another branch of city government claiming that the privilege was not properly asserted that that is a matter that just needs to be  it's not about privilege and that's why i'm suggesting i mean there isn't a case exactly like this of course but there are certainly other cases that do what else do you have besides cantor there proceeding was investigating fifty six lawyers of the sanitary district and when for various misuse of public funds essentially not doing work they said they were doing and getting paid for it pay rolling more or less so when the court looked at one particular attorney that that attorney said well i'm asserting that you know i'm my client the same way terry district hasn't asserted it hasn't wavered privilege am i can't tell you where i've been or what i've been did that really did the court then look at that and determine that there was a privilege the court said there was privilege who was looking at that whether or disagree it simply said well if it's privileged it's privileged and there's not going to be any discipline for this lawyer sell it didn't actually go beyond the assertion of privilege and i think sanitary district means we can't that means the allegations can't be substantiated and that's going to be the end of our inquiry on to whether this attorney can be disciplined now the inspector general looks at some language and privilege was being properly and all that with that where does it go i don't think it goes any further in that our i don't think there's any authority for your statement that the mayor decides whether or not the corporation counsel properly invokes privilege because a privilege is just question and again i think it's important to emphasize that the inspector general has other tools available this just simply removes one aspect of the evidence he'd like to and law enforcement prove cases all the time without knowing what the defendant has told his lawyer there are other ways to build a case and just briefly i want to touch on the duty to cooperate fully inspector general l heavily on that as the reason that city employees and department the city itself shouldn't even have an expectation of confidentiality in conversations with the corporation council  ordinance does not support that reading because in a provision that the inspector general of general actually ignores the there is an objection provision it's not a blanket duty to cooperate without  any assertion of any objection at all in fact it's built right into the ordinance that that any party served with a subpoena from the inspector general can object and certainly privileges the sort of objection that would be reasonable and the clearest distinction because besides the fact that that was specific to an insurance contract and the relationship between an insured and uninsured which does not easily or maybe at all and  the two departments at issue here waste management the duty to cooperate actually was absolutely in that insurance contract and that insurance contract remained in effect until the parties didn't want to enforce it anymore and they still did it so there was no qualification there was no objection provision there were no exceptions of any kind there and that's probably about the primary distinction besides argument that th unique involves unique policy considerations to the insurance contract and preventing collusion between the insured and the party claiming coverage i mean the appearance company nor would it make any sense resubmit for the corporation for the city council to have written the ordinance to abrogate privilege as i referred to at the beginning the departments and employees rely heavily on the herself noted that there was a conflict and i don't know what she meant by that but i think she meant there was a disagreement about whether or not corporation house appropriately exercising a privilege or maybe she simply meant that you want one thing they want another and i don't think she meant either of those i think she meant conflict in the sense in which the professional rules of conduct talk about corporation counsel the relief she seeks namely the dismissal of the complaint my last point of the four goes back to the attorney client privilege rules professional real convents said which the title of which