Open Records Decision No. 399
October 24, 1983

	Re:  Whether records relating to attorney fees incurred by city of Eagle Pass are 
public under the Open Records Act

Mr. Randall H. Erben
City Attorney
City of Eagle Pass
1655 Frost Bank Tower
San Antonio, Texas  78205

Dear Mr. Erben:

	As attorney for the city of Eagle Pass, you have asked us to decide whether the 
Open Records Act, article 6252-17a, V.T.C.S., requires the city to comply with a request 
for

documentation . . . vouchers, expense sheets, or etc., covering any 
attorneys fees incurred by the city of Eagle Pass from February 1, 
1982 until July 30, 1982.

You contend that sections 3(a)(1), 3(a)(2), 3(a)(3), 3(a)(4), 3(a)(5), 3(a)(6), 3(a)(7), and 
3(a)(9) authorize the city to deny this request.

	Section 3(a)(1) of the Open Records Act excepts from required disclosure

information deemed confidential by law, either Constitutional, 
statutory, or by judicial decision.

	In Open Records Decision No. 304 (1982), one of the questions addressed was 
whether the city of El Paso was required to comply with a request for the "originals of all 
the bills for attorneys fees" charged by counsel representing the city in a legal dispute 
between it and the state of New Mexico.  This office concluded:

	As to the originals of the bills for attorneys fees, we believe it is 
clear that they are excepted from disclosure under section 3(a)(1) of 
the Open Records Act, as 'information made confidential by law.'  In 
Open Records Decision No. 210 (1978), this office said that 
correspondence between an agency and its attorney is excepted from 
disclosure under section 3(a)(1) 'by virtue of the attorney-client 
privilege.'  See also, Open Records Decision No. 200 (1978).

	You have sent us photocopies of checks that were sent to the law firms that 
rendered legal services to the city of Eagle Pass during the time period in question.  
Attached to these photocopies are itemized bills indicating the nature of the legal services 
that were provided.  You have informed us that the city wants to withhold only the 
itemized bills, not the photocopies of the checks.

	We conclude that the city may withhold these itemized bills for the reasons set 
forth in Open Records Decision No. 304 (1982).  These bills are quite detailed and reveal 
information concerning legal work done for the city by the law firm.  In our opinion, 
much of the information contained in these bills is protected from public disclosure by 
the attorney-client privilege.  That which is not is so inextricably intertwined with the 
protected material that separation would be impractical.

Very truly yours,

Jim Mattox
Attorney General of Texas

Tom Green
First Assistant Attorney General

David R. Richards
Executive Assistant Attorney General

Prepared by Jon Bible
Assistant Attorney General

APPROVED
OPINION COMMITTEE

Rick Gilpin, Chairman
Jon Bible
Colin Carl
Jim Moellinger
Nancy Sutton