Spotlight PA is an independent, nonpartisan, and nonprofit newsroom producing investigative and public-service journalism that holds power to account and drives positive change in Pennsylvania. Sign up for our free newsletters.
HARRISBURG — A three-judge Commonwealth Court panel has directed the governor’s office to reveal key details about why it spent tens of thousands in public dollars to hire private law firms.
The ruling stems from a months-long public records fight by Spotlight PA and LNP | LancasterOnline to obtain unredacted copies of legal bills and other financial documents showing the reasons for hiring outside lawyers.
At nearly every turn, the administration — first that of former Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf, and more recently, that of Shapiro — has actively blocked the effort, arguing the information is privileged and thus not subject to disclosure under Pennsylvania's public records law.
But the ruling, authored by President Judge Emerita Bonnie Brigance Leadbetter, orders the governor’s office to remove redactions it made to the subject lines of certain legal records, and left the door open to forcing it to disclose even more information about what cases or issues it paid private lawyers to handle.
The decision also revealed some of the information the administration tried to shield: namely, that it had hired lawyers to represent unnamed witnesses in law enforcement investigations, including one involving a federal grand jury. The ruling does not provide any detail about those probes.
Paula Knudsen Burke, a lawyer with the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press who represented the news organizations, said she was pleased with the ruling.
“Our state's public records law exists to promote access to exactly this kind of information, which helps the public more fully understand how its government is operating."
Neither Shapiro’s spokesperson nor a lawyer for his office responded to emails requesting comment, including whether the administration intends to appeal the ruling to Pennsylvania's Supreme Court.
The case has a long and complicated history.
Spotlight PA and LNP first submitted a request for legal records in January 2022, when Wolf was governor. The request was filed with the Office of General Counsel, which often handles legal matters specific to the governor’s office and state agencies. The news organizations asked for invoices and other financial documents for spending on outside law firms from 2019 through 2021.
In response, the general counsel’s office provided copies of 45 invoices submitted by six outside firms that totaled $367,538.
But in every invoice, officials redacted the subject line, making it impossible to understand why they were spending taxpayer money. They also blacked out portions of the invoices describing the work conducted by the private lawyers.
In hiding those critical details, the general counsel’s office argued the information was exempt from disclosure due to, among other things, attorney-client privilege. During oral argument before Commonwealth Court last September, the office also asserted that two of the legal invoices sought by the news organizations included details that would “reveal the institution, progress, or result of investigations.”
One of its lawyers also suggested the two invoices were “protected by an order of the court,” according to the ruling, and urged Commonwealth Court to review them privately.
Leadbetter said the court had done so, and concluded the redacted information did not meet the threshold of revealing the progress or result of an investigation. She also noted that there was no evidence of a court order prohibiting its release.
The senior judge also revealed details about the subject lines in the two invoices. One law firm represented witnesses in two separate grand jury investigations — one run by the state, the other by the U.S. Attorney’s office in Pennsylvania’s Middle District — as well as an investigation by the State Ethics Commission.
The ruling does not provide any further detail.
Leadbetter directed that those subject lines be unredacted. She also directed the Office of Open Records, which had previously sided with the Office of General Counsel in the case, to review in private all remaining subject lines that the administration redacted to determine whether those too have to be disclosed.