Attorney-Client Privilege or Public Obstruction? Ruling Deals Stunning Defeat to Shelby County Government Attorneys in Privilege Battle Against Pro Se Plaintiff
By: Public Affairs Staff on February 18, 2025
MEMPHIS, TN—— In a stunning defeat for Shelby County Government and its attorneys: attorneys Marlinee Clark Iverson, John Marek, Katherine Fraizer, and Mariann Barksdale, community activist and pro se plaintiff Rev. Gerald Kiner has secured a significant legal victory that champions public access to governmental records. This development marks a notable triumph for transparency and accountability within local governance.
The Battle Over Public Records:
The heart of this legal battle centered around Kiner’s assertion that Shelby County attorneys improperly invoked attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine to withhold public records. These records, Kiner argued, were crucial for ensuring governmental transparency and were not subject to the protections claimed by the county.
Kiner’s Persuasive Arguments:
Kiner’s legal strategy hinged on a meticulous dismantling of the county’s claims:
- Misapplication of Legal Privileges: Kiner argued that the documents requested did not meet the Supreme Court’s criteria for privilege as established in Upjohn Co. v. United States. He maintained that the documents served administrative purposes, thus were not covered by attorney-client privilege, especially given the absence of an attorney-client relationship at the time the documents were created.
- Public Interest and Judicial Review: Drawing on precedents like Swift v. Campbell and Smith v. Tennessee Board of Parole, Kiner emphasized that public access to government records is a default rule, integral to checking public officials and instilling confidence in governmental operations.
Quotations from Kiner’s Memorandum of Law:
- “It is both perplexing and disappointing for the defendants to assert that these two items somehow invoke attorney-client privileges… This Honorable Court must be compelled to reaffirm that transparency and accountability within administrative processes must be upheld.”
- “The invocation of the work product doctrine in this instance lacks a solid foundation… Promoting transparency in government proceedings is a fundamental component of our legal system and must not be compromised under the guise of privilege without just cause.”
- “By challenging these unwarranted protections, we highlight the importance of public access to government dealings, ensuring that authority is not cloaked in unnecessary secrecy.”
- “This case is not just about accessing documents; it’s about reinforcing the public’s role in overseeing their government and holding it accountable [as the Founding Fathers intended].”
The February 6, 2025 Decision:
The Chancery Court’s decision on February 6, 2025, ruled in favor of Kiner, declaring that the documents were indeed administrative and that the county’s use of privilege was misplaced. This decision not only underscored the necessity for governmental transparency but also highlighted the overreach of Shelby County’s attorneys in their attempt to shield these records from public view.
Implications for Shelby County:
This legal victory is a significant setback for Shelby County attorneys who have faced criticism for what many see as a pattern of obscuring public access under dubious claims of confidentiality. The decision is a win for the citizens of Shelby County, reinforcing their right to governmental transparency and holding public officials accountable.
Conclusion:
Rev. Gerald Kiner’s success is a testament to the power of determined citizens to challenge and rectify government overreach. It serves as a pivotal reminder of the judiciary’s role in maintaining the balance between governmental secrecy and the public’s right to know. As this case concludes, it not only sets a precedent for future public records requests but also strengthens the foundations of democratic accountability in Shelby County.
About Post Author
