Lash v. Freedom of Information Commission, 14 A.3d 998

In August 2005, Whitaker submitted a FOIA request to Lash seeking documents related to Greenwich's response to a prior FOIA request.
The prior Whitaker dispute had been decided by this court, affirming disclosure with limited exceptions.
Lash and the Greenwich board asserted Exhibits K and L were protected attorney-client communications and thus exempt from disclosure.
The Freedom of Information Commission (commission) concluded Exhibits K and L were not privileged and imposed a $100 civil penalty on Lash for violations of the act.
The trial court dismissed the appeal, and the Appellate Court reversed, remanding to the trial court for in camera review under the Shew four-factor test.
This court granted certification and conducted its own in camera review, ultimately holding the documents privileged and affirming the Appellate Court except for the remand portion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are Exhibits K and L protected by attorney-client privilege?	Lash argues the documents are privileged under Shew and related statutes.	The commission contends the documents on their face do not establish privilege without extrinsic evidence.	Yes; the documents are privileged.
Was remanding for in camera review proper to determine privilege?	Remand was necessary to apply Shew's four-factor test.	Extrinsic review not required; the documents' face shown insufficient for privilege.	Remand unnecessary; court may conduct in camera review and resolve privilege.
Did the civil penalty against Lash survive after appellate findings?	Penalty supported by the commission's findings of violations.	Appellate Court reversed relevant findings, invalidating the basis for the penalty.	Penalty cannot stand; reversed to the extent of remand.

Shew v. Freedom of Information Commission, 245 Conn. 149 (1998) (establishes the four-factor test for attorney-client privilege)
Maxwell v. Freedom of Information Commission, 260 Conn. 143 (2002) (identifies identical privilege elements under statutory and common law)
Stamford v. Freedom of Information Commission, 241 Conn. 310 (1997) (conduct of in camera review can occur in judicial review of exemptions)
Blumenthal v. Kimber Mfg., Inc., 265 Conn. 1 (2003) (confidentiality factors and limited distribution support privilege)
New Haven v. Freedom of Information Commission, 205 Conn. 767 (1988) (burden on claimant to show exemption with sufficiently detailed record)
Dept. of Public Safety v. Freedom of Information Commission, 298 Conn. 703 (2010) (administrative review standard and scope under UDPAA)