"The Governor's idiot fiance"....what might be read into Duke Shepherd's "harsh" email about Cylvia Hayes

Wow.

The other day, the Oregonian published an unsolicited email from Duke Shepherd, who had served as ex-Governor Kitzhaber's labor and human services policy adviser. The key part of the email reads:

For the record, other than keeping her occasionally updated on what we might be doing, the Governor's idiot fiancé had no engagement into the $100 M. Kitzhaber wanted a "game changing" investment in housing for homeless families -- because it cut across all the key priorities, but especially Early Learning. He directed Margaret and me to make it happen. We did. Margaret especially (we initially were aiming for $200M).

Cylvia had lots of mind numbing meetings on poverty. She gave lots of speeches. She had no role in this substantial and critically important decision on housing for the 15-17 budget. We kept her posted to keep her off our backs and off of his. But the budget wasn't hers.

"[I]diot fiance" ... ? That is pretty harsh (as the Oregonian characterized it).

Note that Shepherd now works for the Oregon Health & Science University. Back when he was working for Kitzhaber, though, he apparently dared not express such open contempt to Cylvia Hayes. The Oregonian printed a presumably representative email in which Shepherd, after being castigated by Hayes for not keeping her updated about some project, responded, "I'm very sorry for my oversight in communication on this matter. I should have remembered to update you in a timely manner."

To be fair, Shepherd's response seems entirely professional and civil. The point is that it stands in stark contrast to his current email. So what are we to make of the change in tone and substance?

One possibility is that this is some kind of damage control on behalf of Kitzhaber. By calling Hayes the "idiot fiance," Shepherd distances himself from her, and thereby adds credibility in stating that she had no influence on the low income housing project. If other former aides to the ex-Governor have similar things to say, that would benefit Hayes and Kitzhaber - though at the price of public humiliation - because it would tend to weaken any theory of influence peddling by her.

I went back to the known FBI subpoena to see if Duke Shepherd's name is listed; it's not. Of course, just because someone is listed on the subpoena doesn't mean he or she is a potential target*, and not being listed on the subpoena isn't any kind of immunity. However, it does suggest that as of right now, Shepherd's previous project isn't of primary interest to the FBI.

* Nkenge Harmon-Johnson is probably the easiest example of this; she's listed on the subpoena as someone whom emails to or from are to be produced to the FBI, yet she hasn't requested public funding for a lawyer, and it appears that she was a victim of Hayes' capricious temper.

Another possibility for the harsh email is that there is no more concern about burning a bridge, because the bridge has already collapsed completely with no hope of ever being rebuilt. If other former aides also recognize that the bridge is gone, there may be cooperation with the FBI going on behind the scenes.

Is Cylvia Hayes really entitled to taxpayer-funding of her lawyer to block access to her emails?

The Oregonian reports that former First Lady Cylvia Hayes' lawyer, Whitney Boise, argued in a filing last week that Hayes is entitled to public funding of his attorney's fees for representing her in her effort to block public access to her emails:

As a state agency, Ms. Hayes is authorized by ORS 192.450(3) to retain special counsel to represent her in the legal challenge to the Attorney General's disclosure order. As the Attorney General's Office is prohibited from acting as special counsel in this proceeding, Ms. Hayes has hired me. This conclusion, that Ms. Hayes be allowed to retain special counsel. is further codified in ORS 182.235. Under this statute, where the Attorney General has a conflict, the state officer or agency may employ its own special counsel. ORS 182.235(1).

Based on the above statutes, I am requesting that the legal fees and costs incurred by Ms. Hayes in this case be paid by the State of Oregon. Please let me know as soon as possible whether this request will be granted. 

(Note that there's a typo in the letter. The correct statutory section is ORS 180.235, not 182.235).

This is a creative argument. It may sound outlandish, but there are other situations in which the public is obligated to pay for the attorneys to defend someone that the public is, ostensibly, in an adverse position to - for example, criminal defense. The overarching principle is that the public interest in ensuring adequate legal representation for indigent persons charged with crimes is more important than the mere interest in the public fisc; after all, criminal defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and it benefits society to have confidence that a convicted defendant received a fair trial.

It's less clear that in a public records dispute, there's a similar public interest, but I suppose one could argue that without some legal guarantee that a state agency would be able to defend its records from unreasonable or unwarranted public disclosure, qualified persons might be dissuaded from seeking public office or employment.

But what do Oregon laws actually say? Let's take a look. First, we'll start with ORS 192.450:

(3) The Attorney General shall serve as counsel for the state agency in a suit filed under subsection (2) of this section if the suit arises out of a determination by the Attorney General that the public record should not be disclosed, or that a part of the public record should not be disclosed if the state agency has fully complied with the order of the Attorney General requiring disclosure of another part or parts of the public record, and in no other case. In any case in which the Attorney General is prohibited from serving as counsel for the state agency, the agency may retain special counsel.

So far, Mr. Boise is correct. ORS 192.450 obligates the Attorney General to defend the state agency if she determines that the records sought should not be disclosed, and the petitioner (i.e., the person seeking the records) sues to overturn that determination. In this matter, however, Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum ordered the disclosure of the records, so the last sentence of subpart (3) is operative: "the agency may retain special counsel."

But that statute says nothing about who pays for the special counsel. Mr. Boise cites ORS 180.235, which is titled "Authority of agency to employ counsel" and which states in relevant part:

(1) Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, whenever the Attorney General concludes that it is inappropriate and contrary to the public interest for the office of the Attorney General to concurrently represent more than one public officer or agency in a particular matter or class of matters in circumstances which would create or tend to create a conflict of interest on the part of the Attorney General, the Attorney General may authorize one or both of such officers or agencies to employ its own general or special counsel in the particular matter or class of matters and in related matters. Such authorization may be terminated by the Attorney General whenever the Attorney General determines that separate representation is no longer appropriate. 

(2) Any counsel so employed shall be a member of the Oregon State Bar and shall be paid a salary or other compensation out of the funds appropriated to such officer or agency.

It certainly makes sense that an agency disagreeing with the Attorney General's determination in a public records fight would be allowed to retain its own lawyer to litigate the matter. But notice that ORS 180.235(2) states that it is the agency that pays for the lawyer out of its own budget. This too makes sense, in that it creates an incentive for an agency to think carefully about whether each public records request is worth fighting. If so, the agency has to put its money where its mouth is, so to speak. Without such a requirement, the agency would have no incentive not to over-litigate public records disclosures.

The wrinkle here is that Ms. Hayes was paid no salary and had no state funds formally appropriated to her, though one might argue that the nature of her position as a state officer flowed from her relationship with the former Governor, and hence the funding should come out of the budget for the Governor's office. I imagine that if we were to go down that route, though, that current Governor Kate Brown would decline to pay for Mr. Boise's fees out of her budget - and if forced, she might just disclaim any privacy interest in the records on the part of the Governor's office.

Prior restraints and leaked attorney-client privileged materials

The New York Times edition on the day of the Pentagon Papers decision

One of the interesting nuggets in the Oregonian's Friday story about ex-Governor Kitzhaber's lawyers' efforts to fight the FBI subpoena is the following:

McDermott demanded that the state Justice Department, headed by Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum, file a temporary restraining order to block the publication by Willamette Week of emails Kitzhaber had exchanged with McDermott's partner, Stephen Janik. Rosenblum is married to the weekly paper's publisher, Richard Meeker.

A court order that blocks a newspaper (or anyone else) from publishing something is called a "prior restraint." Because of the First Amendment, most prior restraints are unconstitutional. In The Pentagon Papers Case (1971), the Supreme Court refused to stop the New York Times and the Washington Post from printing excerpts from a classified, 47-volume historical study of the United States' entry into the Vietnam War. The two papers had received the classified material from a whistleblower at RAND Corp. named Daniel Ellsberg. The Supreme Court explained:

"Any system of prior restraints of expression comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity." Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58, 70 (1963); see also Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931). The Government "thus carries a heavy burden of showing justification for the imposition of such a restraint." Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U.S. 415, 419 (1971). The District Court for the Southern District of New York in the New York Times case and the District Court for the District of Columbia and the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in the Washington Post case held that the Government had not met that burden. We agree.

Other cases have suggested that it would take grave, irreparable harm to national security or other such equivalent damage to justify a prior restraint. See Near v. Minnesota (1931) (noting that critical information such as "sailing dates of transports or the number and location of troops" might be subject to a prior restraint).

With that in mind, let's take a look at Oregon's attorney-client privilege law, ORS 40.225. Subsection 2 of that statute states:

A client has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent any other person from disclosing confidential communications made for the purpose of facilitating the rendition of professional legal services to the client:

(a)Between the client or the clients representative and the clients lawyer or a representative of the lawyer;

(b)Between the clients lawyer and the lawyers representative;

(c)By the client or the clients lawyer to a lawyer representing another in a matter of common interest;

(d)Between representatives of the client or between the client and a representative of the client; or

(e)Between lawyers representing the client.

(emphasis added). On its face, the statute appears to authorize a prior restraint against publication of attorney-client privileged material. But would such a court order be constitutional?

In State ex rel. Sports Management News v. Nachtigal (1996), the Oregon Supreme Court ruled that an analogous statute, which permitted courts to block publication of "alleged trade secrets," could not authorize trial courts to issue prior restraints in violation of the Oregon Constitution's free speech clause (i.e., Oregon's equivalent of the First Amendment). The court explained:

A statute that is written in terms that focus on the content of speech is invalid on its face, unless it fits "wholly" within some historical exception. [citations omitted] In this case, Adidas has not demonstrated, nor have we otherwise found, the existence of a historical exception for the prior-restraint protection of trade secrets from publication by a third-party publisher who receives information lawfully. Absent a historical exception, that publication is protected speech that may not be restricted under the Oregon Constitution.

To be sure, trade secrets are not the same thing as attorney-client privileged material. A federal trial court in Florida faced a strikingly similar situation to the one in this matter. In that case, U.S. v. Noriega (1990), CNN had obtained video recordings of numerous conversations involving a federal defendant (Manuel Noriega, formerly the ruler of Panama), including some that consisted of attorney-client communications. The trial court temporarily blocked CNN from airing those recordings (although CNN did in fact air some), and while it ultimately lifted the stay after about a month after reviewing the contested material, the court defended its earlier decision as necessary to be able to weigh the balance between the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial against CNN's First Amendment right.

In essence, this "fair trial/free press" problem would require a court to consider whether publication of additional attorney-client privileged materials would infringe ex-Governor Kitzhaber's right to a fair trial, should he ultimately face criminal charges. For example, publication of privileged materials that reveal detailed trial strategies might well irreparably harm a criminal defendant. Answering the question of whether the emails in this matter fall into that category would, of course, require examination of those emails, which is something that a court would do in camera (meaning in secret).

The Noriega case isn't binding on Oregon courts, but its analysis of the same issue provides a data point suggesting that the prior restraint may be difficult to obtain, but there might be circumstances in which one might be upheld.

Taking a look at Cylvia Hayes' lawsuit against the Oregonian

Former Oregon First Lady Cylvia Hayes filed a lawsuit against the Oregonian on Wednesday, seeking to block access to her emails stored on her computer, after the newspaper made a public records request a month earlier. Let's take a look at the complaint.

First, it seeks a "declaratory judgment" that (1) she is neither a public body nor a public official; (2) compelling her to produce her emails would be an unreasonable violation of her privacy; (3) compelling her to produce her emails would violate her right against self-incrimination; (4) if required to produce the emails, she should have "reasonable time" to respond and she should be able to recover fees for the cost involved.

Like a regular lawsuit, a declaratory judgment settles a legal issue between parties. ORS 28.010 states:

Courts of record within their respective jurisdictions shall have power to declare rights, status, and other legal relations, whether or not further relief is or could be claimed. No action or proceeding shall be open to objection on the ground that a declaratory judgment is prayed for. The declaration may be either affirmative or negative in form and effect, and such declarations shall have the force and effect of a judgment.

A party who would normally be the defendant in a lawsuit might seek a declaratory judgment as a way to get a jump on the other side. For example, if there were a potential contract dispute between parties to the contract, one side might want to get a court ruling that the contract is invalid without breaching the contract and then raising the invalidity as a defense - after all, if you lose that lawsuit, you are then on the hook for breach of contract. With a declaratory judgment, you could find out if you are correct that the contract is invalid; if you're wrong, you can still comply with it and not be in breach.

So in this instance, Hayes is basically asking the court to determine that she doesn't have to turn over the emails, as opposed to her refusing to turn over the emails and then defending her failure to do so later on in court. It's primarily a matter of timing.*

* Sometimes there is a question of whether a complaint seeking declaratory relief is sufficiently "ripe," meaning, ready to be resolved by a court. Generally, this problem arises when the dispute is too abstract or uncertain. In this instance, however, Hayes' status as a public official or private citizen seems concrete enough, especially given the Attorney General's earlier ruling that she indeed was a public official.

Second, Hayes argues that she is neither a public body nor a public official, and hence her emails are not public records within the meaning of the public access statute. Here, she seems to rely on the points she earlier raised unsuccessfully before the Attorney General - that her role was "largely advisory or ceremonial," that she lacked "actual or apparent authority to make binding decisions for the State of Oregon," that she was not paid, that she was not supervised by anyone (though that seems to have been part of the problem!), that she was neither an employee nor an officer of the State, nor elected nor appointed to any position. The Attorney General's order is quite detailed and thorough, and addressed Hayes' points (though of course, a court might view the relevant precedents differently).

Third, Hayes' claim of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination has drawn a lot of media headlines. (Oregonian; Portland Business Journal; Daily Astorian) The Fifth Amendment protects a person from being forced to testify about matters that might tend to incriminate him or her. To the extent that the compelled disclosure of Hayes emails might incriminate her, the self-incrimination problem isn't about the emails, which speak for themselves, but rather, the act of producing those emails.

Hayes' complaint cites United States v. Hubbell, which provides a good discussion of the problem. Hubbell was investigated by the Office of the Independent Counsel as part of the Whitewater matter during the Clinton Administration. Following his conviction pursuant to a plea deal where he agreed to cooperate, the OIC served a subpoena to get access to documents to check the veracity of Hubbell's cooperation. Hubbell refused to do so, claiming his Fifth Amendment privilege. The Supreme Court explained:

More relevant to this case is the settled proposition that a person may be required to produce specific documents even though they contain incriminating assertions of fact or belief because the creation of those documents was not “compelled” within the meaning of the privilege. Our decision in Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976), dealt with summonses issued by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) seeking working papers used in the preparation of tax returns. Because the papers had been voluntarily prepared prior to the issuance of the summonses, they could not be “said to contain compelled testimonial evidence, either of the taxpayers or of anyone else.” [snip] It is clear, therefore, that respondent Hubbell could not avoid compliance with the subpoena served on him merely because the demanded documents contained incriminating evidence, whether written by others or voluntarily prepared by himself.

On the other hand, we have also made it clear that the act of producing documents in response to a subpoena may have a compelled testimonial aspect. We have held that “the act of production” itself may implicitly communicate “statements of fact.” By “producing documents in compliance with a subpoena, the witness would admit that the papers existed, were in his possession or control, and were authentic.” Moreover, as was true in this case, when the custodian of documents responds to a subpoena, he may be compelled to take the witness stand and answer questions designed to determine whether he has produced everything demanded by the subpoena. The answers to those questions, as well as the act of production itself, may certainly communicate information about the existence, custody, and authenticity of the documents. Whether the constitutional privilege protects the answers to such questions, or protects the act of production itself, is a question that is distinct from the question whether the unprotected contents of the documents themselves are incriminating.

What this means is that by responding to the Attorney General's order and turning over the emails, Hayes would be implicitly conceding that (1) these are her emails; and (2) they fall within the scope of the public records request. Those concessions would be important if the matter were to proceed to trial, because the emails could be entered into evidence without any further need for authentication (which basically means, a showing that they are real).

One way to see the significance of this concession is to imagine if, say, the FBI had obtained the same emails through a search warrant. Not only would law enforcement have to figure out which of her emails were responsive (as opposed to making her do the work), but now in a trial, the prosecution would have to figure out some way to authenticate the emails. Perhaps it would be enough to show that they were taken from Hayes' personal computer, but there would have to be some way to show that the email was hers. (This might not be that difficult here, in that people who received emails from Hayes could presumably testify that they recognize her email address.)

If the Fifth Amendment privilege applies, does that mean that the emails can't be obtained? I'd guess that for the vast majority of responsive emails, the answer is no, because they were sent to someone else whom the media can obtain them from. However, I suppose there might be some that might be responsive between Hayes and ex-Governor Kitzhaber (e.g., hypothetically discussing how she would or would not act with regard to Oregon business), and if each raised the Fifth Amendment act of production issue, both sender and recipient would be blocking public access.

That would leave immunity as the other option. There are three kinds of immunity: transaction, use, and derivative use. Transactional immunity is the gold standard; having transactional immunity means that the person can't be prosecuted for the subject matter of the immunity. Use immunity means that the specific testimony being compelled can't be used as evidence against the person, but the government can still bring charges using evidence it gets elsewhere. Derivative use immunity means the government can't use not just the specific testimony being compelled, but also any evidence that it discovers as a result of what it learned from the compelled testimony. In other words, say that a person receives use immunity and then is compelled to testify about a crime, during which the person admits to burying the murder weapon in a particular location. The person's confession is protected by use immunity, while the murder weapon is protected by derivative use immunity (unless the government can show it would have found the weapon anyway). The Fifth Amdnment doesn't require transactional immunity, but it does require use AND derivative use immunity as an alternative to the privilege itself, according to Kastigar v. United States.

This brings us back to Hubbell. The typical Kastigar situation (i.e., use and derivative use immunity) occurs when a person is compelled to testify; it's not generally about the act of production. Hubbell, by contrast, was. So Hubbell is a much closer analogue to Hayes' claimed defense. Hubbell received immunity for the act of production, and in his subsequent prosecution, the OIC indeed honored the immunity by not using the act of production to authenticate any documents compelled via subpoena. As the Supreme Court put it, the OIC took the position that it was as if the documents had magically appeared in the grand jury room.

Hubbell ruled, however, that the use of the compelled documents to find other sources of evidence was indeed a derivative use, and critically, that it was not enough that the OIC refrained from using the act of production itself. The problem - and here, I should note that Hubbell is far from a straightfoward case - seems to have been that the subpoena directed against Hubbell was so broad that it required him to use his own thinking against himself in deciding what was covered by the subpoena. Indeed, although the OIC was not even thinking about tax fraud at the time it issued the subpoena, that is one of the charges that it indicted Hubbell on after receiving the documents and studying them. Hubbell stands as a warning, therefore, that with a very broad subpoena, derivative use immunity might cast a long shadow.

The recent Willamette Week story on emails, including apparently privileged ones ...

Reporter Nigel Jaquiss of Willamette Week has been publishing scoop after scoop on the Kitzhaber-Hayes matter, and his latest story, which is online and in print today, gives an inside look at some of the ex-Governor's and ex-First Lady's emails that WW and The Oregonian have been fighting to get access to. Jaquiss weaves a picture of co-mingled finances, a Governor's fiance who refused to abide by the ethical guidelines set forth by the Governor's staff, and broad and grandiose ambitions on the part of Cylvia Hayes.

The end of the article delves into a different set of emails between Kitzhaber and attorney Steve Janik, who was representing Kitzhaber with respect to the investigation opened by the state Ethics Commission, quoting liberally from an email and a response.

Having gone through law school and practiced law for a short stint before getting into full-time law teaching, I still have seared into my brain the importance of the attorney-client privilege. It exists to ensure that the client will feel free to reveal all relevant information to his/her attorney without needing to worry about whether those revelations will become public. This in turn enables the lawyer to provide the most accurate legal advice to the client.*

* There are exceptions. A client's statement about future crimes that he/she intends to commit would not be privileged, because the lawyer is not there to help the client plan new wrongdoings, only to help defend against alleged past wrongs.

Therefore, whenever I see a communication between a lawyer and his/her client, I immediately wonder, is this privileged material? It's for that reason that I'm not going to get into the substance of the emails between Kitzhaber and Janik and what they might mean in terms of the mounting investigations against the ex-Governor and his fiance.

Oregon Revised Statute 40.225 codifies Evidence Rule 503, governing attorney-client privilege, and states in relevant part:

A client has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent any other person from disclosing confidential communications made for the purpose of facilitating the rendition of professional legal services to the client ...

(emphasis added). I've bolded "any" because I've seen some arguments floating around to the effect that the privilege only protects the attorney from being forced by a court to disclose the confidential communications. That can't be right, because when attorneys inadvertently disclose privileged material to opposing counsel during discovery, they are sometimes able to prevail upon the court to force the opposing counsel to return the privileged documents. See, e.g., Tinn v. EMM Labs, Inc., 556 F. Supp. 2d 1191 (D. Or. 2008) (applying Oregon law); State v. McGrew, 46 Or. App. 123 (Or. Ct. App. 1980). These are not cases in which lawyers used the privilege to shield themselves from courts; rather, they used the privilege to persuade a court to force another party to return privileged materials.

As the above discussion implies, occasionally privileged material gets disclosed by mistake to the other side. The mistake lies in not recognizing the privileged nature of the material during document review. In this instance, while it's not entirely clear how WW got the emails, it seems like they were leaked by someone with access to them.

I mention this possibility (probability?) because one might analogize the situation to ones where whistleblowers send classified government documents to the press in order to expose perceived government wrongdoing. RAND Corp. analyst Daniel Ellsberg famously copied most of the so-called Pentagon Papers* to send to the New York Times first, and later to the Washington Post.

* This was a secret, multivolume history of the United States' embroilment in the Vietnam War prepared by the Defense Department. The government claimed that irreparable harm would follow its publication, but in fact, it turned out that the harm stemmed from embarrassment.

More recently, former Booz Allen Hamilton contractor Edward Snowden gave author/activist Glenn Greenwald a huge trove of classified documents taken from the National Security Agency, which formed the basis of articles that Greenwald wrote.

There is a certain similarity where the whistleblower and the publisher know that the documents are classified government material (in the Ellsberg/Snowden examples) or attorney client privileged (in the current matter), but can argue that the public is entitled to know what the government wants to keep secret, particularly where the documents may reveal government misconduct. I'm not sure how far this analogy goes, however, because there is a difference: attorney client privileged materials reveal legal advice and strategy. To the extent they reveal past misconduct, it is a by-product of the need to disclose relevant facts to obtain accurate legal advice.

There's one other oddity about this story. The WW story hit the newstands early this morning, and the online version was posted one minute after midnight. Yet, as of 8:53 p.m. (i.e., nearly 21 hours later), neither Kitzhaber nor his attorneys had responded to inquiries from the Oregonian. (I say this based on the time stamp of the updated version of the Oregonian's story, which still states that there was no response.) You would think that even if they had nothing else to say, they would be screaming about the inappropriateness of publishing attorney client privileged materials.