Preview:

****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ******************************************************

JAMES A. LASH ET AL. v. FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION ET AL. (SC 18461)
Rogers, C. J., and Norcott, Palmer, McLachlan and Bishop, Js. Argued January 7--officially released April 5, 2011

Eric V. Turner, associate general counsel, with whom, on the brief, was Colleen M. Murphy, general counsel, for the appellant (named defendant). Valerie Maze Keeney, assistant town attorney, for

the appellees (plaintiffs).

Opinion

McLACHLAN, J. The named defendant, the freedom of information commission (commission), appeals1 from the judgment of the Appellate Court reversing the judgment of the trial court in favor of the commission. The commission claims that the Appellate Court improperly concluded that: (1) the plaintiffs, James A. Lash, first selectman of the town of Greenwich (town), and the town board of selectmen, sustained their burden of demonstrating that certain documents were exempt from disclosure because they were protected by attorney-client privilege; and (2) the commission abused its discretion in assessing a civil penalty against Lash. We affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court except as to its order remanding the matter to the trial court. The opinion of the Appellate Court sets forth the relevant facts and procedural history. See Lash v. Freedom of Information Commission, 116 Conn. App. 171, 174

Download Lash v. Freedom of Information Commission.pdf

Connecticut Law