City of Pittsburgh v. Silver
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
No. 1658 C.D. 2011
August 16, 2012
The Commonwealth Court ruled that the Office of Open Records (“OOR”) does not have jurisdiction under the Right to Know Law (“RTKL”) to compel the disclosure of records in the city solicitor’s office related to a pending litigation. To allow the OOR such jurisdiction would infringe upon the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s sole jurisdiction over the practice of law in the state.
Background
Jonathan Silver, a journalist for The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, submitted a RTKL request to the City of Pittsburgh for copies of all correspondence contained in the file of an assistant city solicitor regarding efforts to negotiate a settlement in pending litigation. All of the requested correspondence reflected communications between the city and the other party in the litigation.
At all times relevant to this request for records, no settlement had been reached.
The city denied the request, claiming the requested records were not public and were protected by the attorney work-product doctrine, the attorney-client privilege, and the federal and state rules of evidence.
Silver appealed to the OOR, which ordered the city to turn over the requested records. Upon appeal by the city, the trial court affirmed the OOR’s determination. The city then appealed to the Commonwealth Court.
Commonwealth Court decision
The Commonwealth Court reversed the trial court’s order, stating that the OOR did not have jurisdiction to compel disclosure of the requested records.
Citing the Pennsylvania Constitution and the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct, which governs lawyers’ ethics, the court stated that the Supreme Court has sole jurisdiction over the practice of law, which includes the conduct of litigation and lawyers’ efforts to settle litigation.
The court also explained that “allowing anyone to make ongoing requests under the RTKL concerning all correspondence regarding settlement impermissibly intrudes into the conduct of litigation because it would lessen the frank exchange of information between the parties thereby adversely affecting the ability for litigation to settle.”
In addition, the court expressed its concern that disclosing correspondence in attorneys’ files might reveal the strength or weaknesses of a pending case.
In light of these concerns, the court ruled that the OOR could not compel the disclosure of the requested records without unconstitutionally infringing on the Supreme Court’s sole jurisdiction over the practice of law.