Joy had been denied access by multiple village employees to unredacted invoices for all legal services provided to the municipality by McNamee and his law firm McNamee Law Group LLC, with McNamee himself invoking attorney-client privilege as reason for the denial.
Joy argued that he, as an elected member of village council, would qualify as a privy party under the attorney-client designation.
In a counter filing, the village had asked the court to dismiss Joy’s claim and deny the release of the unredacted records.
In late August, Special Master Todd Marti, who was appointed to review the evidentiary material on behalf of the court, recommended a ruling in favor of the village by denying Joy’s claim to compel release of the unredacted invoices.
Marti opines that Joy is a constituent of the village, and that his status as councilman does not inherently grant him attorney-client privilege in this case.
Additionally, since the redacted invoice material is designated protected attorney-client information, Marti posits, the Court of Claims lacks the authority altogether to fulfil Joy’s request under the Public Records Act.
“The legislature ... has determined that attorney-client privileged materials are not public records. Other remedies may exist to compel respondent to provide that information, but they are beyond the scope of the Public Records Act and this court has no jurisdiction to provide relief apart from the Public Records Act,” Marti’s report reads.
In a subsequent objection to the special master’s report and recommendation, Joy argues attorney-client privilege cannot be used to “obstruct transparency or accountability.”
“This is a privilege that is to be narrowly construed to protect only those communications that are necessary for obtaining informed legal advice and would not have been made without the privilege,” the objection filing reads.
Joy leans on the village charter to support his argument, specifically Section 4.07, which states the law director “shall be directly answerable to the council,” and cites legal precedent from the 2021 case State ex rel. Armatas v. Plain Twp. Board of Trustees.
In that case, the court found invoices for legal services, particularly those funded by public money, to be public records.
“The village of New Lebanon, as a publicly funded entity, is legally and ethically obligated to ensure transparency in the expenditure of public funds, especially in the area of legal services, where misuse can be easily obscured,” Joy’s objection reads. “The redactions in question raise serious concerns. They could be concealing improper billing, questionable legal actions, or conflicts of interest — issues that demand scrutiny by the very officials charged with oversight."
About the Author
