Ago

Florida Attorney General Reports·Decided January 27, 2000·Published

Opinion

Mr. David W. Wagner Alachua County Attorney Post Office Box 2877 Gainesville, Florida 32602-2877

Dear Mr. Wagner:

On behalf of the Alachua County Board of County Commissioners, you ask substantially the following question:

Are records of outside attorney fee bills for the defense of the county, as well as its employees who are sued individually, for alleged civil rights violations subject to disclosure under Chapter 119, Florida Statutes, where those records are maintained by the County Risk Management Office pursuant to the county's risk management program?1

In sum:

Records of outside attorney fee bills for the defense of the county, as well as its employees who are sued individually, for alleged civil rights violations are public records subject to disclosure, even though those records may be maintained by the County Risk Management Office pursuant to the county's risk management program.

Section 119.011(1), Florida Statutes, defines "Public records" for purposes of Florida's Public Records Law to include

"all documents, papers, letters . . . or other material, regardless of the physical form, characteristics, or means of transmission, made or received pursuant to law or ordinance or in connection with the transaction of official business by any agency."

The Florida Supreme Court has interpreted this definition to include all materials made or received by an agency in connection with official business that are used to perpetuate, communicate, or formalize knowledge.2

Clearly, records of attorney fee bills received by the county's risk management office under the county's risk management program constitute public records.3 As such, these records are subject to disclosure in the absence of a statute making them confidential or exempt from disclosure.4 In Attorney General Opinion 85-89, this office concluded that a contract between a county and a private law firm for the provision of legal services, and documentation for invoices submitted by the firm to the county, did not fall within the work product exemption afforded by section119.07(3), Florida Statutes.5 If the bills and invoices contain information exempted by section 119.07(3)(l), Florida Statutes — that is, mental impressions, conclusions, litigation strategies, or legal theories — the exempt material may be deleted but the remainder must be disclosed.6

You refer to section 768.28(15), Florida Statutes, authorizing the state and its agencies and subdivisions to be self-insured, to enter into risk management programs, or to purchase liability insurance, or any combination thereof, in anticipation of any claim, judgment, or claims bill they may be liable to pay pursuantto section 768.28, Florida Statutes. Subsection (15)(b) of the statute provides:

"Claims files maintained by any risk management program administered by the state, its agencies, and its subdivisions areconfidential and exempt from the provisions of s. 119.07(1) and s. 24(a), Art. I of the State Constitution until termination of alllitigation and settlement of all claims arising out of the sameincident, although portions of the claims files may remain exempt, as otherwise provided by law. Claims files records may be released to other governmental agencies upon written request and demonstration of need; such records held by the receiving agency remain confidential and exempt as provided for in this paragraph."7 (e.s.)

Section 768.28(2), Florida Statutes, defines "state agencies or subdivisions" to include, among others, "counties."

Application of the exemption afforded by section 768.28(15), Florida Statutes, is limited to tort claims for which the agency may be liable under 768.28, Florida Statutes. Your inquiry, however, involves federal civil rights laws actions and liability under 42 United States Code section 1983.

You also refer to a staff analysis of the 1994 amendment to the exemption statute, which states that the types of documents in a claims file include "invoices from . . . defense firms[.]"8 To the extent that the staff analysis is indicative of legislative intent, there is nothing indicating that the term should be given such a broad construction. Exemptions to the Public Records Law are to be narrowly construed.9 Moreover, in discussing what is contained in the claims file, the staff analysis refers to materials that are relevant to an assessment or an evaluation of the claim. While the staff analysis refers to "invoices," that term should be construed in light of the other types of information referenced.10 While an invoice may contain information relevant to the claims assessment such as a discussion of the nature of the work performed, an invoice indicating only the hours worked and amount to be paid by the public agency would not appear to constitute the type of information intended for exemption.

Therefore, I am of the opinion that records of outside attorney fee bills for the defense of the county, as well as its employees who are sued individually, for alleged civil rights violations are public records subject to disclosure, even though those records may be maintained by the County Risk Management Office pursuant to the county's risk management program.

Sincerely,

Robert A. Butterworth Attorney General

RAB/tgk

1 You also ask about the Rules of Professional Conduct. Questions relating to the Rules of Professional Conduct should be addressed to The Florida Bar which has been delegated the authority to interpret the rules by the Florida Supreme Court.

2 See, Shevin v. Byron, Harless, Schaffer, Reid andAssociates, Inc., 379 So.2d 633, 640 (Fla. 1980). And see, s.119.011(2), Fla. Stat., defining "Agency" as

"any state, county, district, authority, or municipal officer, department, division, board, bureau, commission, or other separate unit of government created or established by law . . . and any other public or private agency, person, partnership, corporation, or business entity acting on behalf of any public agency."

3 You refer to the Order on Petition for Declaratory Judgment, Petition for Writ of Mandamus, Alternative Writ of Mandamus and Permanent Injunction in Times Publishing Company v. Acton, Case No. 99-8304 (Fla. 13th Jud. Cir. Hillsborough County, November 5, 1999), for the proposition that the payment of legal fees by the county does not render the supporting records of private attorneys subject to Ch. 119, Fla. Stat. The records being sought in that action were in the hands of the private attorneys.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Ago, (Fla. 2000).

Ago (Ago) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

TURNBERRY ISLE RESORT v. Fernandez
666 So. 2d 254 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)
Cepcot Corp. v. DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS
658 So. 2d 1092 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)
Shevin v. Byron, Harless, Schaffer, Reid & Associates, Inc.
379 So. 2d 633 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1980)
Wait v. Florida Power & Light Co.
372 So. 2d 420 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1979)
Smith & Williams, P.A. v. West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority
640 So. 2d 216 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)
Krischer v. D'Amato
674 So. 2d 909 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)