Levy v. Senate of Pennsylvania, 619 Pa. 586

The RTKL governs access to records and codifies privilege exemptions, including attorney-client privilege, in a case about a journalist’s request for records related to outside counsel for Senate Democratic Caucus employees.
Marc Levy requested all bills, contracts, and payment records for outside counsel representing Senator Mellow and Senate Democratic Caucus employees since 2009, prompting redactions to protect privilege.
Senate Open Records Officer produced documents with redactions, asserting attorney-client privilege (and later work product, grand jury secrecy, and criminal-investigation exceptions) to withhold client identities and descriptions of legal services.
The Senate sought to prove privilege via affidavits and an in camera review; Judge Kelley, as special master, analyzed line-by-line redactions, differentiating privileged disclosures from non-privileged billing descriptors.
Commonwealth Court held that client identities are generally not privileged and that descriptions of legal services are not privileged unless they reveal confidential communications, and it adopted the Signature Information Rule that waivers arise when not raised in the initial denial.
This Court granted review to assess (i) client identities, (ii) descriptions of legal services, and (iii) waiver of additional reasons not raised in the initial denial, ultimately affirming some aspects and reversing the waiver rule while remanding for consideration of additional denial grounds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are client identities protected by attorney-client privilege?	Levy: identities should be disclosed unless they reveal confidential communications.	Senate: identities may be protected when disclosure would disclose legal advice or communications.	Privilege may apply to identities when disclosure reveals confidential communications or legal advice.
Are descriptions of legal services protected by attorney-client privilege?	Levy: descriptions revealing legal strategies are protected; redactions sufficient.	Senate: general descriptions are not privileged; only communications unveiling privilege are protected.	Specific descriptions revealing confidential communications are protected; general descriptors are not.
Does the Signature Information Rule waive additional denial grounds not raised in the initial denial?	Levy: waiver rule ensures efficiency and avoids piecemeal denials; supports speedy disclosure.	Senate: waiver is unnecessary and harmful; statute is ambiguous about waiver; protections exist for privacy and privilege.	The per se waiver rule is reversed; agency may raise additional non-privilege grounds on appeal; remanded to consider additional grounds.

Gillard v. AIG Insurance Co., 609 Pa. 65 (Pa. 2011) (attorney-client communications both ways may be privileged)
In re Seip's Estate, 163 Pa. 423 (Pa. 1894) (client identity generally not privileged)
Liebman (United States v. Liebman), 742 F.2d 807 (3d Cir. 1984) (confidential communications exception when disclosure would reveal the essence of communications)
Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383 (U.S. 1981) (purpose of privilege to encourage full and frank communication)
Commonwealth v. Maguigan, 511 Pa. 112 (Pa. 1986) (attorney-client privilege deeply rooted in common law; balancing with RTKL)
Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 585 Pa. 547 (Pa. 2005) (exceptional scope of privilege; not limited to criminal context)
Signature Information Solutions, LLC v. Aston Township, 995 A.2d 510 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (waiver of reasons not raised in initial denial)
SWB Yankees LLC v. Wintermantel, 45 A.3d 1029 (Pa. 2012) (RTKL purpose; liberal construction to promote access)