State ex rel. Ames v. Baker, Dublikar, Beck, Wiley & Mathews
2022 Ohio 171
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2022Background
- Relator Brian M. Ames (pro se) sought unredacted legal invoices from Baker, Dublikar, Beck, Wiley & Mathews (the law firm), PERSO (claims administrator), and OTARMA (township self‑insurance pool) relating to litigation between Ames and Rootstown Township.
- Baker Dublikar produced the invoices but redacted the narrative/itemized descriptions invoking the attorney‑client privilege; it disclosed nonexempt fields (matter title, dates, hours, rates, amounts).
- Ames argued the privilege did not apply because the bills were sent to PERSO (a third party) and relied on the quasi‑agency theory to treat the invoices as public records.
- Respondents moved to dismiss, arguing (among other things) that they were not subject to the Public Records Act and that redactions were privileged and proper; they also noted Ames had received the redacted invoices.
- The court held the invoices are public records under the quasi‑agency test but concluded the narrative portions are protected by attorney‑client privilege, that no waiver occurred by billing PERSO, and that Ames was not entitled to statutory damages, fees, or costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the requested invoices "public records" under the Public Records Act (quasi‑agency)? | Ames: Yes; invoices relate to a public duty and pass the quasi‑agency test. | Respondents: They are private/nonpublic entities or not subject; invoices not subject to disclosure. | Held: Invoices are public records under the quasi‑agency theory. |
| Does attorney‑client privilege permit redaction of narrative/description portions of the invoices? | Ames: Privilege is limited (Open Meetings exec‑session rules) and does not bar production of invoices. | Respondents: Narrative portions are privileged communications and may be redacted. | Held: Narrative/itemized descriptions are protected by attorney‑client privilege; nonnarrative fields must be disclosed. |
| Did sending invoices to PERSO (third party/insurer) waive the attorney‑client privilege? | Ames: Transmission to PERSO waived privilege; therefore full invoices should be producible. | Respondents: No waiver; insurer involvement does not eliminate the client’s privilege. | Held: No automatic waiver; privilege persists even when insurer or claims admin receives bills. |
| Is Ames entitled to statutory damages, attorney fees, or costs? | Ames: Yes; sought damages and fees for alleged failure to comply. | Respondents: Moot/denied because records were provided timely and redactions were lawful; procedural defects as to requests to OTARMA/PERSO. | Held: Denied—Ames received requested records (properly redacted); statutory damages, fees, and costs not available. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Pietrangelo v. Avon Lake, 146 Ohio St.3d 292, 2016-Ohio-2974 (attorney‑fee billing statements: narrative portions privileged; nonnarrative billing data must be disclosed)
- State ex rel. Pietrangelo v. Avon Lake, 149 Ohio St.3d 273, 2016-Ohio-5725 (mandamus standard; clear‑and‑convincing proof required)
- State ex rel. Armatas v. Plain Twp. Bd. of Trustees, 163 Ohio St.3d 304, 2021-Ohio-1176 (legal invoices in insurer custody are public records under quasi‑agency)
- State ex rel. Dawson v. Bloom-Carroll Local School Dist., 131 Ohio St.3d 10, 2011-Ohio-6009 (attorney‑client privilege protects communications between government clients and counsel, including billing narratives)
- State ex rel. Findlay Publishing Co. v. Hancock Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 80 Ohio St.3d 134 (1997) (public records in possession of private attorney can remain public records)
- State ex rel. Toledo Blade Co. v. Ohio Bur. of Workers’ Comp., 106 Ohio St.3d 113, 2005-Ohio-3549 (quasi‑agency concept — private entities performing government work may be responsible for public records)