Skip to main content

Opinion

Opinion By: Gregory D. Stumbo, Attorney General; Michelle D. Harrison, Assistant Attorney General

Open Records Decision

At issue in this appeal is whether Stephen E. Esselman violated the Kentucky Open Records Act in failing to respond to the request of Frederick Brown, a former client, for a copy of his "entire file," including "any and all records, reports or other information pertaining" to him. Attached to Mr. Brown's letter of appeal along with a copy of his request is a copy of the release form authorizing the Department of Public Advocacy and/or Mr. Esselman to release his file and related information "including that which is protected by the attorney-client [privilege] to [him]." As a private attorney, Mr. Esselman does not fall within the definition of a "public agency" to whom the Open Records Act applies found at KRS 61.870(1), nor can the requested records be characterized as "public records" subject to inspection pursuant to KRS 61.870(2) since the records are not "prepared, owned, used, in the possession of or retained by a public agency." That being the case, 01-ORD-40, 01-ORD-24, and 97-ORD-15, copies of which are attached hereto and incorporated by reference, are controlling. In light of this determination, further analysis is unwarranted. Although Mr. Esselman may be obligated under the Rules of Professional Conduct governing attorneys licensed to practice law in Kentucky to return Mr. Brown's client file, 1 his failure to do so does not constitute a violation of the Open Records Act.

A party aggrieved by this decision may wish to appeal it by initiating an action in the appropriate circuit court pursuant to KRS 61.880(5) and KRS 61.882. Pursuant to KRS 61.880(3), the Attorney General should be notified of any action in circuit court, but should not be named as a party in that action or in any subsequent proceeding.

Frederick Brown, # 173934Northpoint Training CenterP.O. Box 479Burgin, KY 40310

Stephen E. Esselman119 S. 7th Street, 3rd FloorLouisville, KY 40202

Footnotes

Footnotes

1 SCR 3.130(1.16)(d) provides:

Upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client's interests, such as giving reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and property to which the client is entitled and refunding any advance payment of fee that has not been earned.

Accordingly, Mr. Brown may wish to contact the Kentucky Bar Association for assistance in the event that Mr. Esselman fails to provide him with a copy of his file as requested.

LLM Summary
The decision concludes that Stephen E. Esselman, a private attorney, does not fall under the definition of a 'public agency' as per the Kentucky Open Records Act, and therefore, the records requested by Frederick Brown, a former client, are not 'public records' subject to the Act. The decision follows previous rulings (01-ORD-040, 01-ORD-024, and 97-ORD-015) that clarify the applicability of the Open Records Act to private entities and individuals. Although Mr. Esselman may have professional obligations to return the client files, his failure to do so does not violate the Open Records Act.
Disclaimer:
The Sunshine Law Library is not exhaustive and may contain errors from source documents or the import process. Nothing on this website should be taken as legal advice. It is always best to consult with primary sources and appropriate counsel before taking any action.
Requested By:
Frederick Brown
Agency:
Stephen E. Esselman
Type:
Open Records Decision
Lexis Citation:
2004 Ky. AG LEXIS 252
Forward Citations:
Neighbors

Support Our Work

The Coalition needs your help in safeguarding Kentuckian's right to know about their government.