FOIA section 7(1)(m)
FOIAAttorney/auditor communications and litigation-preparation materials
5 ILCS 140/7(1)(m). Attorney/auditor communications and litigation-preparation materials (attorney-client-style privilege)
See every document citing this provision →
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 Determination letters are not binding precedent.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
- People ex rel. Ulrich v. Stukel, 294 Ill. App. 3d 193, 201 (1st Dist. 1997) cited 6 times
- In re Marriage of Granger, 197 Ill. App. 3d 363, 374 (5th Dist. 1990) cited 4 times
- Cangelosi v. Capasso, 366 Ill. App. 3d 225, 228 (2d Dist. 2006) cited 4 times
- Cangelosi v. Capasso, 366 Ill. App. 3d 225, 228 (2nd Dist. 2006) cited 3 times
- Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Garvey, 109 F.R.D. 323, 327 (N.D. Cal. 1985) cited 3 times
- Illinois Education Ass'n v. Illinois State Board Of Education, 204 Ill. 2d 456, 470 (2003) cited 3 times
- People v. Radojcic, 2013 IL 114197, ¶ 40, 998 N.E.2d 1212, 1221-22 (2013) cited 3 times
- Clarke v. American Commerce National Bank, 974 F.2d 127, 130 (9th Cir. 1992) cited 3 times
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 Determination letters are not binding precedent and this is not legal advice.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
- The public body withheld or redacted a communication that appears to be a factual update or request for information, not legal advice. The Bureau has found that purely factual communications are not privileged attorney-client communications or work product.Based on: n.d. · Attorneys' emails with factual up… · n.d. · Attorneys' emails with factual up… · n.d. · Emails about an investigation int…
- The public body denied access to an audit report prepared by an outside accounting firm or external auditor, claiming the internal audit exemption. The internal audit exemption under section 7(1)(m) does not apply to audits conducted by external parties.Based on: n.d. · Records provided to a village's a… · n.d. · Audit reports on a board's real e…
- The public body redacted only the names of attorneys or clients from legal invoices or correspondence. The identity of a client or attorney is generally not privileged, and the public body must show that disclosure would reveal confidential communications or litigation strategy.Based on: n.d. · Invoices and purchase orders for … · n.d. · A village's legal invoice redacti…
- The public body provided a blanket assertion of privilege without specific evidence for each withheld record. The Bureau requires objective indicia that each communication was for legal advice and kept confidential; blanket assertions are insufficient.Based on: n.d. · Emails between a township and its… · n.d. · Correspondence between a governor… · n.d. · A village's legal invoice redacti…
- The public body withheld communications with an adversarial party, such as a public defender, claiming attorney-client privilege. Section 7(1)(m) does not apply to communications between adversarial parties because there is no attorney-client relationship.Based on: n.d. · Emails between four individuals o…
When the public body usually wins
- The public body redacted detailed descriptions in legal invoices that reveal the specific nature of legal advice sought or provided. Detailed billing entries that reveal confidential attorney-client communications are exempt.Based on: n.d. · Legal fee invoices for Title IX m… · n.d. · Invoices and purchase orders for …
- The public body withheld emails or correspondence directly between agency employees and the agency's attorney that seek or provide legal advice. Communications between a public body and its attorney for confidential legal advice are exempt under section 7(1)(m).Based on: n.d. · Records on business transfer veri… · n.d. · Emails withheld under attorney-cl… · n.d. · Correspondence about classroom ob…
- The public body withheld an investigative report prepared by its attorney for the purpose of providing legal advice. Investigative reports prepared by attorneys to provide confidential legal advice are exempt.Based on: n.d. · Investigative reports on sexual h…
- The public body withheld a record compiled by an internal auditor during a review of a public body's process. Records compiled by an internal auditor fall within the internal audit exemption.Based on: n.d. · University records claimed exempt…
Points to put in your letter
- If the record appears to be a factual update or request for information, argue that it is not legal advice and thus not exempt. Cite that the Bureau has found purely factual communications are not privileged.Based on: n.d. · Attorneys' emails with factual up… · n.d. · Attorneys' emails with factual up… · n.d. · Emails about an investigation int…
- If the public body redacted only names or titles from billing records, argue that the identity of attorneys and clients is generally not privileged, and the body must show how disclosure would reveal confidential communications.Based on: n.d. · Invoices and purchase orders for … · n.d. · A village's legal invoice redacti…
- If the public body claims the internal audit exemption for a report by an outside firm, point out that the exemption only applies to internal audits, not those by private accounting firms or external auditors.Based on: n.d. · Records provided to a village's a… · n.d. · Audit reports on a board's real e…
- If the public body provided only a blanket privilege log, demand that they provide objective indicia for each withheld communication, showing it was for legal advice and kept confidential.Based on: n.d. · Emails between a township and its… · n.d. · Correspondence between a governor…
- If the communication is with an adversarial party like a public defender, argue that there is no attorney-client relationship, so the exemption does not apply.Based on: n.d. · Emails between four individuals o…
Common mistakes
- Assuming that any email sent to or from an attorney is automatically exempt from disclosure.Based on: n.d. · Attorneys' emails with factual up… · n.d. · Emails about an investigation int…
- Accepting a blanket assertion of privilege without demanding objective indicia for each record.Based on: n.d. · Emails between a township and its…
- Redacting attorney or client names from invoices without showing that disclosure would reveal litigation strategy or confidential communications.Based on: n.d. · Invoices and purchase orders for … · n.d. · A village's legal invoice redacti…
- Applying the internal audit exemption to reports prepared by outside accounting firms or external auditors.Based on: n.d. · Records provided to a village's a… · n.d. · Audit reports on a board's real e…
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