Click for home page Office of the Attorney General - State of Texas
John Cornyn

June 26, 2000

Mr. John M. Knight
Assistant City Attorney
City of Lubbock
P.O. Box 2000
Lubbock, Texas 79457


Dear Mr. Knight:

You ask whether certain information is subject to required public disclosure under chapter 552 of the Government Code. Your request was assigned ID# 136486.

The City of Lubbock (the "city") received a request for a copy of each itemized bill that the city received from any attorney hired by the city in regard to a specific litigation matter. You state that the city does not object to releasing the total dollar amount of these legal bills. However, you claim that the requested itemized bills are excepted from disclosure under sections 552.101,(1) 552.103, and 552.107 of the Government Code. We have considered the exceptions you claim and reviewed the submitted information.

A bill for attorney's fees is subject to disclosure under section 552.022(a) of the Public Information Act. Section 552.022(a) provides in relevant part:

(a) Without limiting the amount or kind of information that is public information under this chapter, the following categories of information are public information and not excepted from required disclosure under this chapter unless they are expressly confidential under other law:

. . .

(16) information that is in a bill for attorney's fees and that is not privileged under the attorney-client privilege[.]

Gov't Code 552.022(a)(16). For the purposes of section 552.022(a), sections 552.103 and 552.111 of the Government Code are not other laws that make information expressly confidential. See Open Records Decision No. 665 at 2 n.5 (2000) (explaining that sections 552.103 and 552.111 are not confidentiality provisions). Thus, with the exception of any information that is subject to the attorney-client privilege under section 552.107(1), the contents of the submitted bills for attorney's fees are subject to required public disclosure under section 552.022(a)(16) and must be released.

Accordingly, we address whether the attorney-client privilege applies to the requested information. Section 552.107(1) excepts information from disclosure if:

it is information that the attorney general or an attorney of a political subdivision is prohibited from disclosing because of a duty to the client under the Texas Rules of Civil Evidence, the Texas Rules of Criminal Evidence, or the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct.

Gov't Code 552.107(1). In Open Records Decision No. 574 (1990), this office concluded that section 552.107 excepts from public disclosure only "privileged information," that is, information that reflects either confidential communications from the client to the attorney or the attorney's legal advice or opinions; it does not apply to all client information held by a governmental body's attorney. Id. at 5. Section 552.107(1) does not protect purely factual information. Id. The attorney general explicitly found that a governmental body may withhold information in an attorney fee bill only to the extent that the information reveals client confidences or the attorney's legal advice. See Open Records Decision No. 589 (1991). Moreover, in Open Records Decision No. 589, the attorney general determined that the "attorney-client privilege" exception did not protect a requested list of "phone calls and conferences regarding a particular matter" or indications that an attorney had reviewed documents relevant to the attorney's representation of the government body. We have reviewed the submitted fee bills and find that only one document contains information that is privileged under section 552.107(1). Therefore, the city may withhold the information that we have marked on the green-tabbed document under section 552.107(1). The city must release the remainder of the requested bills to the requestor.

This letter ruling is limited to the particular records at issue in this request and limited to the facts as presented to us; therefore, this ruling must not be relied upon as a previous determination regarding any other records or any other circumstances.

This ruling triggers important deadlines regarding the rights and responsibilities of the governmental body and of the requestor. For example, governmental bodies are prohibited from asking the attorney general to reconsider this ruling. Gov't Code 552.301(f). If the governmental body wants to challenge this ruling, the governmental body must appeal by filing suit in Travis County within 30 calendar days. Id. 552.324(b). In order to get the full benefit of such an appeal, the governmental body must file suit within 10 calendar days. Id. 552.353(b)(3), (c). If the governmental body does not appeal this ruling and the governmental body does not comply with it, then both the requestor and the attorney general have the right to file suit against the governmental body to enforce this ruling. Id. 552.321(a).

If this ruling requires the governmental body to release all or part of the requested information, the governmental body is responsible for taking the next step. Based on the statute, the attorney general expects that, within 10 calendar days of this ruling, the governmental body will do one of the following three things: 1) release the public records; 2) notify the requestor of the exact day, time, and place that copies of the records will be provided or that the records can be inspected; or 3) notify the requestor of the governmental body's intent to challenge this letter ruling in court. If the governmental body fails to do one of these three things within 10 calendar days of this ruling, then the requestor should report that failure to the attorney general's Open Government Hotline, toll free, at 877/673-6839. The requestor may also file a complaint with the district or county attorney. Id. 552.3215(e).

If this ruling requires or permits the governmental body to withhold all or some of the requested information, the requestor can appeal that decision by suing the governmental body. Id. 552.321(a); Texas Department of Public Safety v. Gilbreath, 842 S.W.2d 408,411 (Tex. App.-Austin 1992, no writ).

If the governmental body, the requestor, or any other person has questions or comments about this ruling, they may contact our office. Although there is no statutory deadline for contacting us, the attorney general prefers to receive any comments within 10 calendar days of the date of this ruling.


E. Joanna Fitzgerald
Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Division


Ref: ID# 136486

Encl: Submitted documents

cc: Mr. Charles Dunn
Dunn & Walker
Attorneys at Law
P.O. Box 311
Lubbock, Texas 79408-0311
(w/o enclosures)



1. You claim section 552.101 in order to claim that the requested fee bills are privileged under the attorney work product doctrine. However, section 552.101, which excepts from disclosure information deemed confidential under other law, does not incorporate the attorney work product privilege. See Open Records Decision No. 575 at 2 (1990) (stating that statutory predecessor to section 552.101 does not encompass discovery privileges). The proper exception to raise when claiming attorney work product is section 552.111. ORD No. 575; Gov't Code 552.111. Accordingly, we interpret your claim of attorney work product privilege as an assertion of that privilege as it is encompassed by section 552.111.

POST OFFICE BOX 12548, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711-2548 TEL: (512) 463-2100 WEB: WWW.OAG.STATE.TX.US
An Equal Employment Opportunity Employer

Home | ORLs