Gen. 15 15
COUNTIES
A TTOR NEYS

) E VIDENCE

) P UBLIC I NFORMATION A CT

) “C LIENT ” OF S T . M ARY ’ S C OU NTY A T TORNEY

) A PPLICAT ION OF A TTORNEY -C LIENT AND O THE R P RIVILEGES TO D OCUMENTS P REPARED BY C OUN T Y A TTORNEY
December 16, 1997
The Honorable Roy Dyson Maryla nd S enate

You have request ed our opini on co n cerning t he assertion of t

he attor ney- clie nt privi lege bythe Cou nty Attorney for St. M ary’s C ou nt y. Spe cif

ically, you ask w hethe r the clien ts of th e cou nty attor ney ar e, as y ou put it , “the County Commissi oners andnot the citi zens of S t. Mary ’s County .” You also as k whether writ ten materi al prepared by

the county

attor ney for a county agencymay be withheld f

rom public di sclosur e as pri vilege d. Our opinion is as follows:
1. The corp orate entity that is St. Mary ’s County is the cli ent of th e St . M ary’s C oun ty Atto rne y. The county com missioners are not indivi dually

the clients o f the c oun ty attorney. H ow ever, to the extent t hat the commissioner s and other elect ed and appoint ed offic ials and employe es of the c ounty are car ry ing out the f

unctions of the co rpora te en ti ty

inac co rd an ce wit

h l aw, they

are the agents of the cli en t an d m ay b e v iew ed by t he coun ty attorney as e ntitled to speak for the c lient . Although t he county

attor ney s hould a c t with due r egard for the pub lic interes t, an att orney -cli ent relationshi p as such does not or dinari ly exist between the count

y attor ney and t

he citize ns o f the cou nty.
2. A document is not co nfide ntial as a matte r of law mere ly because it i s prep ared b y the cou nty attorne y. Man y docum ents prepared by t he county attorney, howe ver, are privi leged becaus e of16 [82 O p. Att’y

1 The status of

documents and other

records is determined under the PublicInformation Act, rather than t he St. Mar

y’ s County

Open Meeti ngs Law, Article 24, Title 4, Subtitle 2.

2 Like wise, co unties that h ave ado

pted cha rter home rule ar e also corporations. See Article 25A, §1.

3 In charter

homerule counties, the charter may delineate a more specific role for th e c ou nt y at to rn ey
) that is, whether the county attorney repres ents both the executive and legislative branches of government or onl y the executive branch. Compare, e.g., §213 of the Montgomery County Charter with §403(b) of the Harford County Charter. their content an d therefore a re not disclosab le under t he Maryland Pub lic Info rmatio n A ct. 1
I

Identity o f the C ounty Attorn ey’s “C lient”
Article 25, §1 of the Mar yl and Code begins as f ollows: “The coun tycomm issioners of ea ch co unty in thi s Stat e are decl ared to be a corporation .. ..” The corp orate s tatus of the co unty comm issioners is confirmed by the case law

. See Neuenschwanderv. Washingt on Suburban Sanit

ary Comm’n, 187 M d. 67, 4 8 A .2d 59 3 (19 46); Jay v. County Co mm issioners, 120 M d. 49, 87 A . 521 (191 3). 2 Therefore, the atto rney for a cou nty repres ents t he co rp or ate en tity. 3
In the cours e of repres enting t hat corpor ate e ntity, a coun ty attor neyis subj ect t o the Maryl and Rules of Profession al Co ndu ct. One of these, Rule 1.13, addresse s the res pon sibility of a la wyer to an organizationalclie nt. Under Rule 1.13( a), “a

lawyer employe d or retained by an organization r epresent s the or ganizat ion act ing throughits duly

authori zed consti tuents .” As the c omment to the rule points out, “ an or gani zation al client is a legal e ntity, but it cannotact except through its officer s, direct ors, employees, sharehold ers and o ther co nstituen ts.” In this r ule , the term “constituents” does nothave the political meaning of thos e who elect the governing offic ia ls. Rath er, the term “con stituents” refers to those who, in the struc ture of t he organization, are entitled to a ct for it. When the corporation is a county , the s e “con sti tuents ” incl ude the coun ty commissioner s, appoi nted offi cial s, and empl oyees and age nts o f the cou nty.Gen. 15 17
The comment to the rule r ecognize s that “defini ng precis ely

the iden tityof

the cl ient and prescr ibing t he resul ting obl igati ons of [go vern men t] lawyer s may be more di fficul t in t he governm en t conte xt. Alth oug h in so me c ircum stance s the clie nt m ay be a spe cific agency , it

is gener ally

the government

as a whole. For example, if the a ct or fa ilure to act i nvolves t he head of a bureau, t

he department

of w hich th e burea u is a part or t he governmen t as a wh ole may be the cli ent for t he purposes of

thi s rule .” In other words, the county attorney must consider the ext ent to which, under ap plicable law, the offici al or empl oyee i s author ized t o act on beha lf of the count

y. Within t

he scope of l awful authori ty , the offici al or employ ee is an agent of the cor

porate e ntit

y and i s enti tled to sp eak on b eha lf of , and exe rcise the p rivile ges of, th e clie nt.
C er tai nl y, a co unt y attorn ey, like oth er p ubl ic law yers, has a respo nsibility to consi der the publ ic int erest . As the commentto the rule points out, for

example, “ when the clie nt is a gover nmental organization, a differ ent bal ance may be a pprop riat e between maintai ning conf

ide ntial ity

and assuring that [ a] wrongful offi cial act is pre ven ted o r rec tified , for pub lic bu sine ss is in vol ved .” Nevertheless, the county at torney general ly

does not have an attor ney- clie nt relation ship with members of the public, for they are neithe r the co rpora te entity that is the clien t nor ag ents o f the c oun ty auth oriz ed b y law to ac t on its be half

.

II Attorney-ClientPrivil ege
)Invocation
A governmental entity

is no less e ntitl ed to the protection of the attor ney- clie nt pri vilege than any other cl ient. This prot ecti on exis ts bo th u nde r the com mo n law and by statu te. The attor

ney- clie nt pri vilege ha s a ncient origi ns and was establ ishedas a matt er of E ngl ish common law long befor e the independence of

the U nited Sta tes. See Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S . 383, 3 89 (1 981 ); United Stat es v. ( Under Seal) , 748 F.2d 871, 873 (4th C ir. 1984 ). As o ne co urt ob serve d, “the privileg e is intende d to encoura ge the cl ient in need of legaladv ice to tell the lawyer the truth. Unless the lawyer knows the trut h, he or she cannot be o f much assis tance t o the cl ient. ” Samaritan Foundati on v
. Goodfarb , 862 P.2 d 87 0, 87 4 (A riz. 1 993 ).18 [82 O p. Att’y
In Maryland, the attorney -cli ent priv ilege has been described as “dee ply rooted in the common law.” State v . Pratt , 284 Md. 516, 519, 398 A. 2d 421 (19 79) . Th erefore , the privi lege i s preser ved under Articl e 5 of the Declarat ion of Right s, which decl ares that “ the Inha bitants of Maryland are entitled to the Common Law of England

... acco rding t o the cours e of that Law .... ” The common la w privi lege is also given statutory recognition: “A pers on may not be compelledto tes tify

in viol ation of

the attorney -cl ie nt pri vilege .” §9- 108 of th e C our ts an d Ju dicia l Pro cee din gs A rticle

. Th e c om m on law pr iv ile ge ha s a lw ays been underst ood to be availa ble to government agenci es. See , e.g., Hearn v. Rhay , 68 F. R. D. 574, 579 (E.D. Wash. 1975) (“Federalcour ts hav e uniform ly held that t

he att orney -cl ient priv ilege c an aris e w ith resp ect to att or ne ys repres enting a state.”). A s the D .C. C ircuit rec ently observed, “In the gov ernm ental c ontex t, the ‘clie nt ’ m ay be the agencyand the attorney may be an agenc ylawyer .” Tax Ana lysts v. IRS , 117 F .3d 607, 61 8 (D.C . Cir. 199 7). See also , e.g., In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum , 112 F .3d 91 0 (8th Cir .), cert. denied , 117 S. Ct. 2482 ( 1997) (re cognizi ng fede ral g overnm ent’s ent itl em entto cla im att orney -cli ent pri vilege while rej ecti ng applic ability of privi lege t o not es taken by in-house presi dentia l counse l during m eetings w ith First Lady and he r private coun sel).
The Maryland Publ ic Infor mation Act ( “P IA” ) likewise recogniz es the attorney- cl ient privil ege as a basi s on which a government a gen cy

may wit hho lddoc ume nts from pub lic inspection

. Under §1 0- 615(1) of t he State Government (“SG”) Arti cle, Maryland

Co de, “a custodian sh all deny inspection of a public reco rd or any par

t of a publ ic record i f ... by law, the pub lic reco rd is privile ged or c onfident ial. ” In addition, unde r SG §10-618(b), “a custodi an may deny i nspecti on of any par t of an inte ragency

or intraagencylett er or memorandum that would not be avail able by law to a privat e party

in li tigation with t

he unit.” This som ewh at awk ward provisi on, adapted ver batim fr om the federalFreedom of Informati on A ct, ha s lo ng be en he ld to in co rp or ate th e a tto rn eyclie nt priv ilege

. See g ener ally An not ation , Freedom of Infor mation Act Exemption (

5 U.S.C.S. §552(b) (5)

) for Inter-Agency and Int

raAgency Memorand

ums or Le tters as A pplica ble to Comm unications to or from Attorneys for t he Government , 5 4 A. L.R

. Fed. 280 (1981).Gen. 15 19

4 Under what is called the “joint defense”or “common interest” rule, the privil ege c an be pre served f or commun

ications n ot only with clie nts but also among “persons who share a common interest in litigation” and their attorneys. In re

Grand Jur

ySubpoenas 89-3 &89-4, John Doe 89- 129 , 902 F.2d 244, 249 (4th Cir. 1990).

5 Prudence sug ge sts that documents within the privilege be identified as such. The failure to doso, coupled with unnecessary distributionof the doc

uments, ma y suggest that confidentiality was not intended. See Jonathan Corp. v. PrimeComputer, Inc. , 114 F.R.D. 693, (continued...) In sum , St. M ary’s Co unty, acting throu gh its agents, is ent itl ed to invoke the a ttorn ey-clie nt p rivile ge. Unless an offi cial authori zed to do so has wai ved the privileg e, the co unty attorne y has a d uty to asse rt it on beh alf o f the clien t enti ty.
III Attorney-ClientPrivil ege
)Scope
“The attorne y-client priv il ege protects c onfident ial communicati ons from clients to their att orney s made for the purpose of securi ng legal advice or servi ces.. .. The privil ege also p rotects communicati ons from a ttorneys to their c lients if th e communicati ons ‘rest

on confident ial informati on obtaine d from the client.’” Tax Ana lyst

s v. IRS , 117 F.3d at

618 (quoti ng In re Sealed Ca se , 77 F .2d 9 4, 99 (D .C. C ir. 19 84) ). See g ener ally Harris on v
. State , 276 Md. 122, 135, 345 A.2d 8 30 (197 5). 4 Because the cl ient in this sit

uation, the county, is an or ganizat ion, “ the pri vilege extends to those com mu nicatio ns be twee n attorn eys and all age nts or employe es of the organizat ion wh o are a utho rized to act or s peak for the org aniza ti on in rel ation to the subj ect matt er of the com mu nica tion s.” Mead Data Central, I nc. v. United

States De

p’t of Air F orce , 566 F .2d 242, 253 n. 24 (D.C. Cir. 1977). Thus, the attor ney- clie nt pr iv ile ge m ay be invoked for c ommunications between a county

attor ney and agen ts of the count

y i n circumst ances whe re there i s “actua l confi dentia lit y, limi ted dis tribution safeguards, real expectati ons o f confidential s tatus , and the functi oning of the attorn ey a s co uns el to t he a gen cy .... Co nfide ntiality must have been bot h expected at the time and caref ully mai nt ai nedto avo iddi sc lo sur e. ” 1 J ames T. O’ Re i lly, Federal Information Disclosure §15.14 (2 d ed. 199 6). 520 [82 O p. Att’y

5 (...continued) 696 n.6 (E.D. Va. 1987); Hardy v. New York News, Inc. . 114 F.R.D. 633, 644 (S.D.N.Y. 1987). T he privileg e, how ever, “ is not ab solute; it d oes n ot restr ic t disclosure of

every aspect of

what occurs bet

ween the att orney

and the clie nt.” In re Criminal Investigati on No. 1/242Q , 326 Md. 1, 11, 602 A.2 d 12 20 (1 992 ). For e xam ple, fac ts that the atto rneymay dev elo p independent ly

from sources other t

han the cl ient are not privi leged, even if t

hose fact s are i nclud e d in the law yer’s communicati on to th e clie nt. See Allen v . WestPoin t-Pep pere ll, I nc. , 848 F. Su pp. 42 3, 427 -8 (S.D .N.Y . 1994 ); Smi th v. Co nwa y Organizati on, Inc. , 154 F.R .D. 73, 78 (S .D.N .Y. 19 94); Ca rte Blanche (Singapore) P.T.E., Ltd. v. Diners C lub Int’l , 130 F.R. D. 28, 33 (S.D .N.Y . 1990 ). M oreo ver, a d ocum ent tha t is not itself privi legeddoes not gain privil eged stat us merely

because i t passe s throughthe attorney’s hands o r is attached to an a ttorney’s communicati on to th e clie nt. Se e, e .g., Pacamor Bearings, I nc. v. Minebea Co. Ltd. , 918 F. S upp . 491 , 511 (D .N.H . 199 6).
At times, a gover n ment lawy er may be assigne d the rol e of arti culat ing an agency ’s vie w of the law. If, for example, an agency lawyer provides “neu tral, obj ectiv e an alyses of a gen cy reg ulati ons ,” these docu men ts may fall o utsid e the priv ilege

. Coastal St ates Gas Corp. v. Department of Energy , 617 F.2d 854, 863 (D .C. Cir. 1980 ). When the attorney in effect be come s the decision m aker f o r the ag en cy, th e do cume nt s e mb od yi ng the deci sion ar e not pri vilege d. Schlef fer v. United Stat

es , 702 F.2 d 23 3 (D .C. C ir. 19 83)

.

IV
Other Privil eges The attor ney- clie nt pri vilege is not the only one that might be availa ble to maint ain the confident iality of document s pr epared by a co un ty at to rn ey. As a matter of b oth com mo n law and the P IA , a coun tyattor

ney may assert the work-pr oduc t privi lege t o keep certain materi al confident ial. In general , “documents

... prepared in antic ipati on of

litigation or for trial” are the attorney’s work prod uct.Gen. 15 21 Marylan d Ru le 2-402(c) . This work pr oduct is ordinarily not disco verab le in civil litiga tion: “W e do n ot think that disc over y in civil cases . .. goe s to that which is i n essence t

he work product of t

he attor neyaccu mu lated in the preparati on of the cas e.” Wagonheim v. Maryland

State Boardof Censors , 255 Md. 297, 309, 258 A.2d 240 (1969), aff’d , 401 U. S. 480 (19 71)

. The privi lege i s int ended to keep confident ial the “a t torney ’s le gal st rategy , his intende d lines of pr oof, his evaluation of stre ngths and weakness es of his case, and the infere nces he draws fr om int erviews of witness es.” Sporck v. Peil, 759 F.2d 312, 316 (3d Cir .), cert. denied , 474 U. S. 903 (19 85).
In additi on, the PIA protect s from disc l osure clie nt c onfidences coveredby Rule 1. 6 of the Maryl and Rules of Profession al Co ndu ct. This rule pr ohib its a lawye r from revea ling “informati on relating to r epre sentation of a cli ent unle ss the c lient consents after consult ation, exce pt for d isclosu res tha t are im pliedly au thorize d in orderto carr

y out the repr esentation, ” a nd except as otherwise authori zed in the r

ule or ot he r la w. If dis closur e of information wo uld place aco un ty a ttor ney i n violation of Rule 1. 6, the n the informat ion i s “pri vilege d and confidential” for purpose s of a req ues t un der the P IA

. Harris v. Balti more Sun Co. , 330 Md. 595, 625 A .2d 941 (1 993).
Fi na lly, a wr it in g fr om the cou nty attor ney might

also be exe mpt from discl osure i f it f alls within t

he executive o r governmentalprivile ge as pec t of S G § 10- 618 (b). See g ener ally Ha mil ton v. Verdow , 287 Md. 544, 414 A.2d 914 ( 1980); 66 Opinions of

the AttorneyGeneral98 (1 981 ). This p rivilege protec ts mate rials that are deliberative in char ac t er and that were cre ated during the pro cess le ading up t o a d ecis ion

. See Office of the Attorney Ge ner al, Public I

nformati on A ct Manual24-26 (7th ed. 1997).22 [82 O p. Att’y

6 Subsequent to your reque st for an opinion, your office pr ovided materialfrom a c onstituen t that, in the constituent’s view, evidenced too broad an as se rt io n o f p ri vi le ge by S t. Ma ry’ s Count y w hen cer tain documents were requested under the PI A. Because t

he Attorney Gene

ral’s Officehas n ot beengranted authority to adjudicate disagreements about the status of r

ecords und er the PIA, we must limit ourselves to the guidanceprovided in this opinion and decline to consider whet her th e County responded corre ctly

to partic ular re quests for docume

nts. V
Conclusion
In sum mary, it is our opinion that St. Mary’s County, as a corp orate en tity, is the cli ent of the St. Mary ’s County Attorney , and the Co unty A ttorney m ay, unde r app ropria te circumst ances, invoke t he attor

ney- clie nt and othe r pri vilege s to maint ain the confidentialit

y of documents encompassed b y those pri vileges. 6

J. Joseph C urran, Jr. AttorneyGeneral
Jack Sch wa rtz Chief Counsel Opinions and Advic e