This site is a research reference, not legal advice. See the FAQ disclaimer for details.
Illinois FOIA & OMA Reference

7(1)(m)

FOIA

Attorney/auditor communications and litigation-preparation materials

Attorney/auditor communications and litigation-preparation materials (attorney-client-style privilege)

Follow updates (RSS)

Read the full statute text on /statutes →

Jump to the 24 issues decided under this provision, with a drafting brief ↓

5 upheld (no violation found) · 19 rejected (violation found) · 6 partial violation · 1 closed / insufficient info / other, out of 31 documents.

Not legal advice, and not a per-exemption ruling — this reflects each document's overall disposition. See the FAQ disclaimer.

How the Public Access Counselor has treated 7(1)(m)

Section 7(1)(m) covers attorney-client communications, attorney work product and similar litigation-preparation and auditor materials. In these decisions public bodies invoked it for emails with counsel, forwarded legal correspondence, legal billing invoices, police and investigative records, questionnaires, and updates on legal matters.

The PAC applied the exemption narrowly and in most of these matters found improper withholding. It required the public body to prove with specifics that material was truly privileged or work product, and treated purely factual status updates, general billing information such as rates, time and descriptions, and client or attorney names as not exempt. Where records contained both exempt and non-exempt information, the PAC required disclosure of the non-exempt portions.

At a glance: 31 documents from 2012 to 2025(9 binding opinions, 22 determination letters). Most often cited alongside: 7(1)(f) (Preliminary drafts, notes, and deliberative materials) (15); 7(1)(c) (Personal privacy) (9); 7(1)(b) (Private information) (4); 7(1)(a) (Confidential under other federal or State law) (3); 7(1)(n) (Employee grievance/discipline adjudication records) (2).

Recurring issues

Practical points

Summary drafted from the linked decisions and checked against them; read the decisions themselves before relying on it. Not legal advice.

All 31 documents citing 7(1)(m)

Issues decided under 7(1)(m)

Individual questions the Public Access Bureau decided under this provision, with the rule it applied, grouped by outcome. Extracted automatically from the letters; check each source letter.

24 issues across 18 determination letters:15 violation found · 9 no violation.

Counts are per issue, not per letter, and come from automated extraction checked against sampled letters. Determination letters are not binding precedent.

Authorities the Bureau cites most on this issue

How to challenge a denial on this issue

AI-generated summary of the decisions listed on this page, with each point linked to the letters it comes from. Determination letters are not binding precedent and this is not legal advice. Open the letter and check the PDF before relying on any point.

When a challenge is strong

When the public body usually wins

Points to put in your letter

Common mistakes

Facts to gather first

  • Whether the record is an audit report prepared by an external firm rather than internal staff.
  • Whether the redacted or withheld communication appears to be a factual update or request for information, not legal advice.
  • Whether the public body redacted only names or titles from legal invoices or correspondence.
  • Whether the public body provided a detailed privilege log or only a blanket assertion of privilege.
  • Whether the communication involves an adversarial party, such as a public defender.

These notes are based on non-binding determination letters; outcomes depend on specific facts, and you should verify the full PDF of any cited decision.

Drafting brief for an AI assistant

Copy this into your assistant to help draft a request, appeal, or challenge to a denial that turns on this issue. It carries the rules and decisions, not your facts: add those yourself. Machine-readable version: foia-7-1-m.json.

Violation found (15)

  • Redaction of page 10 email line under 7(1)(m)

    Rule: The Department failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that the redacted line reflects legal guidance sought or given, so the redaction was improper.

    Violation found Communications and a legal memo from a city planning department · March 26, 2025

  • Section 7(1)(m) exemption for records given to external auditors

    Rule: Records provided to an external auditor are not materials prepared or compiled with respect to internal audits and thus are not exempt under section 7(1)(m).

    Violation found Records provided to a village's auditors · December 4, 2024

  • Section 7(1)(m) attorney-client privilege for Bench Book

    Rule: The Bench Book is not privileged because it does not convey legal advice based on underlying confidential communications.

    Violation found An administrative law judge bench book on vehicle enforcement · March 17, 2023

  • Section 7(1)(m) attorney work product for Bench Book

    Rule: The Bench Book is not attorney work product because it was not prepared for a particular trial or hearing.

    Violation found An administrative law judge bench book on vehicle enforcement · March 17, 2023

  • Withholding emails with Public Defender under 7(1)(m)

    Rule: Section 7(1)(m) does not apply to communications exchanged by adversarial parties, as there is no attorney-client relationship or work product protection.

    Violation found Emails between four individuals over three months · July 18, 2023

  • Redactions under section 7(1)(m) attorney-client privilege

    Rule: A public body must provide objective indicia that redacted communications are confidential legal advice, not merely factual narratives involving an attorney.

    Violation found Police reports redacted for attorney-client privilege · June 18, 2024

  • Redaction of client and attorney names under 7(1)(m)

    Rule: The identity of clients and attorneys is generally not privileged and cannot be redacted absent a showing that disclosure would reveal confidential communications or litigation strategy.

    Violation found Invoices and purchase orders for legal services · April 30, 2021

  • Withholding all correspondence with outside counsel

    Rule: Not all attorney-client communications are exempt; the public body must show that each withheld communication contains or reveals legal advice or work product.

    Violation found A village's legal invoice redactions and copying fees · April 8, 2019

  • Redaction of attorney names from legal invoices

    Rule: The identity of a client or attorney is generally not privileged; redacting only names or titles from billing descriptions is improper unless disclosure would reveal confidential communications or litigation strategy.

    Violation found A village's legal invoice redactions and copying fees · April 8, 2019

  • Whether withheld emails are exempt under section 7(1)(m)

    Rule: A public body claiming section 7(1)(m) must provide objective indicia that communications were for legal advice and kept confidential; blanket privilege log assertions are insufficient.

    Violation found Emails between a township and its legal counsel · October 17, 2018

  • Ninth request KPMG audit report under section 7(1)(m)

    Rule: The internal audit exemption does not apply to audits prepared by a private accounting firm.

    Violation found Audit reports on a board's real estate and investment activities · February 1, 2017

  • Work product exemption for withheld email

    Rule: A purely factual status update that does not reveal attorney theories, mental impressions, or litigation strategy is not protected work product.

    Violation found Attorneys' emails with factual updates to clients · April 8, 2016

  • Attorney-client privilege exemption for withheld email

    Rule: An email conveying only factual information rather than legal advice is not a privileged attorney-client communication.

    Violation found Attorneys' emails with factual updates to clients · April 8, 2016

  • Section 7(1)(m) exemption for e-mails

    Rule: E-mails that merely request and furnish factual information do not reveal attorney theories, mental impressions, or litigation plans and are not work product exempt under section 7(1)(m).

    Violation found Emails about an investigation into a school district's finances · November 23, 2015

  • Withholding legal update under section 7(1)(m)

    Rule: A public body must provide objective indicia that a communication is a privileged attorney-client communication to withhold it under section 7(1)(m).

    Violation found Correspondence between a governor's office and a former agency director · March 31, 2016

No violation (9)

  • Redaction of legal invoice details under FOIA section 7(1)(m)

    Rule: Detailed descriptions of legal work revealing confidential attorney-client communications are exempt, but generic descriptions like 'telephone conference' are not.

    No violation Legal fee invoices for Title IX matters · September 17, 2025

  • Withholding attorney-client communications under section 7(1)(m)

    Rule: Communications between a public body and its attorney seeking or providing legal advice are exempt if they remain confidential and are not shared with outside parties.

    No violation Records on business transfer verification and tobacco licensing · April 22, 2025

  • Redaction of April 18, 2024, memo email under 7(1)(m)

    Rule: The email contains legal guidance from a City attorney to the Department concerning a zoning issue, and the privilege was not waived by inadvertent partial disclosure.

    No violation Communications and a legal memo from a city planning department · March 26, 2025

  • Withholding of investigative report under attorney-client privilege

    Rule: Investigative reports prepared by attorneys to provide confidential legal advice to a public body are exempt under section 7(1)(m).

    No violation Investigative reports on sexual harassment allegations · October 16, 2024

  • Withholding e-mails under section 7(1)(m)

    Rule: E-mails between Village employees and the Village's attorney seeking or providing legal advice are exempt attorney-client communications.

    No violation Emails withheld under attorney-client privilege and insurance exemptions · June 6, 2024

  • Redaction of detailed legal billing information under 7(1)(m)

    Rule: Detailed billing entries revealing the substance of confidential attorney-client communications are exempt from disclosure under the attorney-client privilege.

    No violation Invoices and purchase orders for legal services · April 30, 2021

  • Proposed redactions of correspondence

    Rule: Redactions are proper when limited to communications made to an attorney for legal advice or in which the attorney provided legal advice, and the privilege has not been waived.

    No violation A village's legal invoice redactions and copying fees · April 8, 2019

  • Withholding of attorney-client communications under section 7(1)(m)

    Rule: Section 7(1)(m) exempts communications between a public body and its attorney for confidential legal advice that would not be subject to discovery in litigation.

    No violation Correspondence about classroom observations and integration · February 7, 2019

  • Internal audit report within section 7(1)(m) exemption

    Rule: A record compiled by an internal auditor during a review of a public body's process falls within the section 7(1)(m) exemption for internal audit materials.

    No violation University records claimed exempt under personal privacy · March 31, 2016