Chaimov v. Dept. of Admin. Services, 498 P.3d 830

In 2018 state agencies submitted "2019 Agency Request to Office of Legislative Counsel for Drafting of Legislation" forms (marked "Confidential and Attorney-Client Privileged") to DAS, which forwarded approved concepts to the Office of Legislative Counsel (LC) for drafting.
LC is statutorily authorized to provide drafting and limited legal services to agencies upon written request (ORS chapter 173) and to keep matters designated confidential (ORS 173.230).
Plaintiff (a private attorney) requested the request forms under Oregon’s Public Records Law; DAS refused, invoking the lawyer–client privilege (OEC 503 / ORS 40.225) and ORS 192.355(9).
The Attorney General affirmed that the forms were privileged communications sent to LC to facilitate legal drafting.
Plaintiff sued for declaratory relief; the trial court granted plaintiff’s summary judgment and ordered disclosure, holding agencies could not be LC clients; the state appealed.
The Oregon Court of Appeals reversed, holding communications between agencies and LC (preliminary to and during bill drafting) are privileged under OEC 503 and exempt from disclosure under ORS 192.355(9), and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether agency requests to LC are privileged attorney–client communications under OEC 503	LC represents the Legislative Assembly; agencies are represented by the Attorney General, so LC–agency privilege cannot exist	OEC 503 defines "client" broadly; LC provides professional legal services to agencies on request, and the forms were confidential communications to facilitate those services	Reversed trial court: forms are privileged communications under OEC 503 and exempt under ORS 192.355(9)
Whether confidentiality or stakeholder discussions waived privilege	Agencies discussed concepts with stakeholders and indicated temporary confidentiality, so privilege is waived	Stakeholder discussions about underlying facts do not waive privilege in communications to counsel; temporary confidentiality does not preclude asserting privilege later	No waiver: forms were intended and treated as confidential and privilege was not waived
Whether LC personnel qualify as "lawyer" and agencies as "client" under OEC 503	LC’s role is legislative and not a conventional attorney–client representation of agencies	Legislative Counsel is authorized to practice law and LC’s drafting services are professional legal services; agencies who consult LC qualify as "clients" under OEC 503	LC is a "lawyer" and agencies that sought LC drafting services are "clients" for purposes of OEC 503

State ex rel OHSU v. Haas, 325 Or 492 (Or. 1997) (articulates three-part test for attorney–client privilege under OEC 503)
Port of Portland v. Oregon Center for Environmental Health, 238 Or App 404 (Or. Ct. App. 2011) (applies attorney–client privilege in public records context)
Klamath County School Dist. v. Teamey, 207 Or App 250 (Or. Ct. App. 2006) (discusses privilege elements and treatment of confidential communications)
Crimson Trace Corp. v. Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, 355 Or 476 (Or. 2014) (privilege analysis governed by statutory rule, not external definitions of attorney–client relationship)
City of Portland v. Bartlett, 304 Or App 580 (Or. Ct. App. 2020) (discusses interplay of OEC 503 and public-records exemptions and retention limits)
State v. Jancsek, 302 Or 270 (Or. 1986) (cited for privilege analysis foundations)