U MEMO 26-11

U MEMO 26-11
April 23, 2026
Confidential Attorney-Client Communications; Intra-Agency Disclosure

Requester was an investigator for the Honolulu Liquor Commission (Commission) assigned to investigate a liquor license applicant.  Through his chain of command, Requester sought from its attorney, the Department of the Corporation Counsel’s (Counsel) legal opinion on whether the applicant had complied with certain requirements.  The Commission noted that Requester had previously jeopardized the attorney-client privilege by disclosing contents of prior advice from Counsel, but it did ask Counsel for legal advice on the issue raised.  Requester sought a copy of the advice, but was only provided with a paraphrase of Counsel’s legal conclusions.  Requester appealed the denial of his record request to OIP. 

OIP found that section 92F-12(b)(2), HRS, which requires disclosure of records authorized to be disclosed to the requester, was inapplicable because there was no statute that specifically authorized disclosure of the legal opinion to Requester.  The parties did not dispute that the legal opinion was a confidential communication between the Commission and its attorney, and therefore was subject to attorney-client privilege.  OIP also found that the Commission did not waive attorney-client privilege and that the Commission, not Requester, was the client with the power to claim attorney-client privilege and determine who could access the legal opinion.  OIP therefore concluded that the Commission was authorized to withhold the requested record under the UIPA. 

OIP also found that a record request from a government employee under the UIPA is treated in the same way as a request from the general public.  OIP therefore concluded that the UIPA does not require the Commission to disclose a record that could be withheld under a UIPA exception to Requester in his capacity as an employee of the Commission.