WPC- ִH5*<غLgE"n@8G bbk7˴Ż2e$3nOM~bU2v>@^P~bI\ЯvJ¤1# % 0 0 UNQ 0 0 z~ 0 0 0 0d* 0|N[ 0] 09E 0 0 0 0 0 0Z 0* 0 0 0 0! 0[" 03# 0$ 0$ 0% 0u&U>>'UN|''^ 'w'4'b'' ( m(U@&(&(&(&(&(&(&(&(&(&(&(&(&(&(&(&(&(&(&(&(&(&(&(&(&(&(&(&(&(&(&(&( 0f(f(f(f( BQ)Q) 0n) D3* D-E* 0Kr*r* A\*+ 0+ 0D, A,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, D5r- B-HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6,,,,02J+M 0_level1  X 2( ` hp x 223  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular2G+M 0_level2   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2D+M 0_level3   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5   C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt2A+M 0_level4  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2>+M 0_level5   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2;+M 0_level6   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  28+M 0_level7  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  ӁLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 525+M 0_level8   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  22+M 0_level9    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2JM 0_levsl1  X 2( ` hp x 223  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2GM 0_levsl2   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2DM 0_levsl3   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2AM 0_levsl4  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2>M 0_levsl5   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2;M 0_levsl6   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  28M 0_levsl7  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  25M 0_levsl8   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  22M 0_levsl9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2JM 0_levnl1  X 2( ` hp x 223   5+ ` hp x 5  2GM 0_levnl2   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  2DM 0_levnl3   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  2AM 0_levnl4  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  2>M 0_levnl5   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  2;M 0_levnl6   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  28M 0_levnl7  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  25M 0_levnl8   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  22M 0_levnl9    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  \  `&Times New Roman(uH Z6Times New Roman Regular C+s 8n_+l~Ԧ- -3|xU(uH Z(Times New Roman (|G2$ !.8^dd8         0   d(|3Gx$ !.8^dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`N<<C xdLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Gx$ !.8^dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK)!dxdxP Pd !.8^dd8     _  ^8XXdd8  @ N^INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#^N #Ԉ &   January29,2001Session L XX^ #^XX#ALLISONCOATSv._SMYRNA_/RUTHERFORD J COUNTYAIRPORTAUTHORITYXX^   ^ @@ AppealfromtheChanceryCourtforRutherfordCounty  ^ @@No.99MI1476RobertE._Corlew_,III0 @ ,Chancellor  J @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M200000234_COA_ԄR3CVFiledDecember13,_2001_   AV) ` dE<` A      #^XXٱ#XX^(XXXXThisactionwasbroughtbytheplaintiffagainstthedefendantfollowingtworequestsbytheplaintiff  pursuanttotheTennesseePublicRecordsActforcertaindocumentsrelatingtothe_Smyrna_ԀAirport x negotiationswithWigginsGroup,PLC./PlaneStation,Inc.Theplaintiffallegedastatutoryrightto d inspectcertaindocuments.Ultimately,thetrialcourtorderedallofthedocumentsreleasedtothe P plaintiff,butorderedcorrespondenceaddressedtoorsignedbythe_SRCAA_Ԁattorneyplacedunder < sealpendingappeal.Theprincipalissueonthisappealiswhethertheappelleeisentitledtothe (x documentsundersealpursuanttoTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection10-7-503.#(^X(X\##^(^{#XX^ d - Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourtAffirmed  <   #^X; #XX.^WilliamB.Cain,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichBENH.CANTRELL,P.J.,M.S.and  PATRICIAJ.COTTRELL,J.,joined.  JoshA.McCreary,Murfreesboro,Tennessee,fortheappellant,_Smyrna_/RutherfordCountyAirport  Authority. t  AllisonCoats,_Smyrna_,Tennessee,ProSe. L"!   OPINION #^XX #XX^ $$t# #^XXa #  XX^0   (#(# ?+ ` hp x X?  Theappellantinthiscaseisamunicipalairportauthoritylocatedatthe_Smyrna_ԀAirport %L!% knownasthe_Smryna_/RutherfordCountyAirportAuthority( _SRCAA_).Theappelleeisaresident &8"& of_Smyrna_Ԁand,bythedateoftheappellatecourthearing,becamealicensedattorney.Theappellee '$#' appearedinthetrialcourtproceedingsprose.Theappelleeisoneoffiveorganizersanddirectors ($( ofacommunitygroupknownasConcernedAreaResidentsGetOrganized( CARGO).The )$) presentcasearoseoutofproposeddevelopmentsandnegotiationsbetweenthe_Smyrna_ԀAirportand *%* theWigginsGroup,PLC/PlaneStation,Inc.( Wiggins).The_SRCAA_Ԁwasrepresentedbyaprivate +&+ attorneyinthenegotiations.AletterofintentwasenteredbetweenWigginsandthe_SRCAA_Ԁthat p,', containedaconfidentialityprovisionstating: \-(- _ԇ8   ` CONFIDENTIALINFORMATION.LessorandLesseeacknowledgethatin  connectionwiththisletterandtheLease,eachwillneedtoprovidetheotherwiththe  confidentialinformation.Eachagreesthatitwilltakeallreasonablestepstoinsure  thateachofitsofficers,employees,agentsandadvisorswill:t   8   `  (a)  Keepandsafeguardasconfidentialallsuchconfidential ` information.L    8   `  (b)  Usesuchconfidentialinformationsolelyforthepurposesof 8  evaluationregardingandcomplyingwiththeprovisionsoftheLeaseandfor $ t purposesofexercisingtherightsandprivilegesaffordedundertheLease. `   8   `  (c)  Nottodisclosesuchconfidentialinformationexceptforthe  L  purposesdescribedabove,orexceptandincompliancewiththerequirementsset  8  forthaboveorexceptasrequiredbylaw(oranyregulationsorguidelineshavingthe $  forceoflaw)orsubpoenaorbylegalprocessorbyanygovernmentalorregulatory   agencyauthorityorbodyorasrequiredbyanystockexchangeinwhichsharesof   LesseeoranyaffiliateofLesseearetradedoraretobetraded.Noinformationshall   bedeemedconfidentialinformationifatthetimeitwasprovidedbyLessoror   Lessee,asapplicable,itwasinthepublicdomainorifitthereafterentersthepublic p domainotherthanthroughthebreachoftheseconfidentialityprovisions.\     OnApril6,1999,theplaintiffandMr.King,thedirectorofCARGO,enteredthe_SRCAA_ 4 officeandrequestedcertaindocumentsconcerningcorrespondencerelatingtoalienontheairport  p propertyheldbyMetro/NashvilleAirportAuthority.Allfurtherrequestswerereferredto_SRCAA_s  \ privateattorney.Theplaintiffwasgrantedtwoofthethreerequesteddocuments.OnSeptember17, H 1999,theplaintiffwenttothe_SRCAA_Ԁofficerequestingadditionaldocuments.Sheleftawritten 4 request,address,andphonenumberattheoffice.Nofurthercontactwasmadewiththeplaintiff   untilshefiledapetition.     TheplaintifffiledapetitiononOctober7,1999seekingtoinspectcertaindocuments  pursuanttoTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection10-7-101,etseq.( Act).TheplaintiffsSeptember  17,1999requestincludedsevenrecordsorcategoriesofrecordsincluding:(1)Abusinessplanof l Wigginsrelativetothedevelopmentofthe_Smyrna_Ԁairport,(2)thesourceofinformationofthe X   AirportFactswhichwasreleasedtoexplainWigginsplans,(3)thesourceofinformationupon D! whichtheMemorandumofUnderstandingbetweentheAirportAuthorityandWigginsGroupwas 0"  based,(4)invoicesforAirCargoFeasibilityStudyandStrategicPlanpreparedby_Keiser_Ԁ& #l! AssociatesandthenoisestudybyPBS&J,(5)proposedleaseagreementsbyWiggins,(6) $X" counter-proposedleaseagreementsfrom_SRCAA_ԀtoWiggins,and(7)allcorrespondencebetween $D # _SRCAA_ԀandWiggins %0!$   The_SRCAA_Ԁreleasedthemajorityofthedocuments,however,theproposedleaseagreements '#& andallofthecorrespondencebetween_SRCAA_ԀandWigginswerenotdisclosed. (#'   TheChanceryCourtforRutherfordCountyorderedtheproposedleaseagreementsdisclosed: |*%)  h+&* 8   ` [_T]he_ԀcourtfindsthattheOpenRecordsActappliestotheDefendant,and  thattheDefendantmustimmediatelyprovidetothePlaintiffaccesstothefollowing  documents:LeaseAgreementsproposedbyWigginsGroup,PLC/PlaneStation,Inc.;  LeaseAgreementsproposedbytheDefendanttoWigginsGroup,PLC/PlaneStation, t Inc.....TheCourtfurtherfindsthatnodocumentshavebeenidentifiedwhich ` constitutesthesourceofinformationforapublicationintroducedknownas Airport L  Factsorforadocumententitled MemorandumofUnderstandingbetweenthe 8  DefendantandWigginsGroup.TheCourtfindsthatthebusinessplanofWiggins $ t Group,PLC/PlaneStation,Inc.relativetodevelopmentatthe_Smyrna_ԀAirportand  ` aninvoiceforanAirCargoFeasibilityStudyandStrategicPlanhavebeenpreviously  L  introduced. 8     X X?+ ` hp x X? X XE+ ` hp x X E  Thetrialcourtdeniedtheappellantsrequestforstaypendingappealandtheleaseswere   releasedtotheappellee.Inamemorandumopinionlettersubmittedbythetrialcourt,after   concludingthattheleaseswerepublicrecordsandthattheplaintiffwasentitledtothem,thecourt   stated:     X X?+ ` hp x X?Thecorrespondenceperhapsshouldbeconsidereddifferently.IftheDefendant \ claimsthatthecorrespondencebetweenWigginsandtheDefendantisprotectedby H theattorney-clientprivilege,itappearsthatthesedocuments(orcopiesthereof) 4 shouldbefiledundersealandexaminedbytheCourtincamera,beforebeingfurther  p considered.Initially,itwouldseemthatthemajorityofthesedocumentssimilarly  \ havebeencommunicatedtothirdparties,andthusarenotlegitimatelysubjecttothe H attorney-clientprivilege.Nonetheless,theremaybeanelementofexpectationof 4 privacyinaletternotpresentinthedraftofacontract.Althoughtheletterswhich   aredirectlybetweencounselandtheagencyprobablyareprotectedbythe   attorney-clientprivilege,communicationsbetweentheagencyandathirdpartyare  probablysuchtoreleaseundertheOpenRecordsAct.   X XE+ ` hp x X E  Inalaterletter,thecourtstated: l 8   ` IhaveconcludedmyreviewofthecorrespondencesubmittedtomebyMr. D! Copeunderseal....WhileIfranklybelievethatcorrespondenceshouldfallwithin 0"  adifferentcategoryundertheopenrecordslawfromlegaldocuments,proposedor #l! completed,Ifindnolegalauthoritysettingforthsuchadistinction.Uponreviewof $X" thecorrespondence,Ifindnothingwhichwouldjustifyanorderpreventingtheir $D # disclosure,althoughagainIwillacknowledgethatevenclothedwiththeauthorityof %0!$ theCourt,andwiththeability,atleastuponinitialreview,tokeepsecretallthatI &"% see,Icontinuetohavethefeelingthatasenseofprivacyisbeinginvadedwhenthe '#& correspondenceismadepublic.Infairness,itdoesnotappeartotheCourtthatany (#' greatamountsofinformationwillbelearnedbythePlaintiffherein,oranyother )$(  membersofthepublicfromtheexaminationofthecorrespondence.The |*%) correspondence,ofcourse,containsnothingofaparticularlysensitivenature,yetit  appearstohavebeenwrittenwiththeexpectationofprivacy.    X X?+ ` hp x X? ` Nonetheless,thelawprovidesthatsuchinformationisopentothepublic. t  X XE+ ` hp x X E  Thetrialcourtorderedallcorrespondencebetweenthe_SRCAA_ԀandWigginsreleased L  pursuanttotheAct,butgrantedastayoftheorderrelatingtocorrespondenceaddressedtoorsigned 8  bythe_SRCAA_Ԁattorney. $ t   Theappellantmaintainsthatthedocumentsatissueinthisappealincludetheproposedlease  L  agreementsbyWiggins,thecounter-proposedleaseagreementsfrom_SRCAA_ԀtoWiggins,andall  8  correspondencebetween_SRCAA_ԀandWiggins. Toavoidbeingdismissedasmoot,...issuesmust $  ...remainjusticiablethroughouttheentirecourseofthelitigation,includingtheappeal.County   ofShelbyv._McWherter_,936S.W.2d923,931(Tenn.Ct.App.1996)(citingMcIntyrev._Traughber_,   884S.W.2d134,137(Tenn.1994)).Wefindthattheissuesrelatingtothedraftleasesandthe   correspondencethatwerepreviouslyprovidedtotheappelleearemoot.Therefore,wetakeno   positionastothepreviouslyreleaseddocuments.Atissueonappealarethedocumentsunderseal p includingcorrespondenceaddressedtoorsignedbythe_SRCAA_Ԁattorney( correspondence). \   OurreviewisgovernedbytheprovisionofTenn.R.App.P.13(d)that reviewoffindings 4 offactbythetrialcourtincivilactionsshallbedenovoupontherecordofthetrialcourt,  p accompaniedbyapresumptionofthecorrectnessofthefinding,unlessthepreponderanceofthe  \ evidenceisotherwise.However,withregardtoissuesoflaw,thestandardofreviewisdenovo H withoutapresumptionofcorrectness._Ganzevoort_Ԁv.Russell,949S.W.2d293,296(Tenn.1997); 4 _Ridings_Ԁv.RalphM.ParsonsCo.,914S.W.2d79,80(Tenn.1996).   (XXXX  Inthepresentcase,weareconfrontedwiththeapplicationoftheActtocorrespondence  signedbyoraddressedtoanattorneyinthepossessionoftheattorney.Publicpolicyfavorstheright  ofcitizenstoinspectpublicrecords.SeeCityofJacksonv.JacksonSun,Inc.,1988WL11515,at  *5(Tenn.Ct.App.1988).Thepublicsrighttoaccessrecordsofgovernmentalentitiesisvery l broad,creatingapresumptionofopenness.SeeMemphis_Publg_ԀCo.v.CityofMemphis,871 X  S.W.2d681,684(Tenn.1994);seealsoContemporaryMedia,Inc.v.CityofMemphis,No. D! 02A01-9807-CH00211,1999WL292264,at*3(Tenn.Ct.App.1999);seealsoArnoldv.Cityof 0"  Chattanooga,19S.W.3d779,785(Tenn.Ct.App.1999);seealsoTenn.CodeAnn.10-7-503.The #l! LegislaturehasdeclaredthattheAct shallbebroadlyconstruedsoastogivethefullestpossible $X" publicaccesstopublicrecords.Tenn.CodeAnn.10-7-505(d)(1999);SeealsoGriffinv.Cityof $D # Knoxville,821S.W.2d921,924(Tenn.Ct.App.1991).However,notallpublicrecordsareopen %0!$ toinspection.Id. Theburdenofproofforjustificationof_nondisclosure_Ԁofrecordssoughtshallbe &"% upontheofficialand/ordesigneeoftheofficialofthoserecordsandthejustificationforthe '#& _nondisclosure_Ԁmustbeshownbyapreponderanceoftheevidence.Tenn.CodeAnn.10-7-505(c) (#' (1999). )$(   |*%)   TheappelleemaintainsthatthecorrespondencesoughtiswithinthepurviewoftheActand   theappellantmaintainsthatthecorrespondenceatissuesignedbyorreceivedbyanattorneyisnot  subjecttotheAct.First,theappellantarguesonappealthatthecorrespondencedoesnotfallwithin  thedefinitionofpublic records. t   Thefirstissueweaddressiswhetherornotthedocumentsinthecorrespondencearepublic L  recordswithinthemeaningoftheAct.Publicrecordsaredefinedas alldocuments,papers,letters, 8  ...orothermaterial...madeorreceivedpursuanttolaworordinanceorinconnectionwiththe $ t transactionofofficialbusinessbyanygovernmentalagency.Tenn.CodeAnn.10-7-301(6)  ` (1999).TennesseeCodeAnnotated10-7-503provides allstate,countyandmunicipalrecords  L  ...exceptanypublicdocumentsauthorizedtobedestroyed...shallatalltimes,duringbusiness  8  hours,beopenforpersonalinspection...andthoseinchargeofsuchrecordsshallnotrefusesuch $  rightofinspection...unlessotherwiseprovidedbystatelaw.(Emphasisadded).     ThefinalclauseofTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection107503(a)statingthatdocuments   areavailableunlessotherwiseprovidedbystatelawqualifiesthepresumptionofopennessby   creatingageneralexceptionforotherstatelawsprotectingdocuments.Arnoldv.Cityof p Chattanooga,19S.W.3d779,785(Tenn.Ct.App.1999)(citing_Ballard_Ԁv._Herzke_,924S.W.2d652, \ 662(Tenn.1996);_Appman_Ԁv._Worthington_,746S.W.2d165,167(Tenn.1987)). H   Thepropertestindeterminingwhethermaterialisapublicrecordremainswhetheritwas  p madeorreceivedpursuanttolaworordinanceorinconnectionwiththetransactionofofficial  \ businessbyanygovernmentalagency,and [_a]pplication_Ԁofthistestrequiresanexaminationof H thetotalityofthecircumstances.Idat924(citingTenn.CodeAnn.10-7-301).The 4 correspondencewasmadeinthecourseoftheentitysofficialbusinessinconnectionwithofficial   business.InanefforttocomportwiththeLegislaturesmandatethattheActbeconstruedbroadly   aspossible,wetakethepositionthatthecorrespondencemeetstheexpansivedefinitionofpublic  record.#XXX(XJ?#(XXXXԀ    Asidefromthegeneralexception,_T.C.A._Ԁ10-7-504,andnumerousotherstatutes l cross-referencedcreateclassesofconfidentialrecordsnotsubjecttoinspection.SeeGriffin,821 X  S.W.2d921,923.AmongtheexceptionsisonefortheworkproductoftheAttorneyGeneraland D! Reporteroranyattorneythereunder.Arnold,19S.W.3d779,785.Correspondenceaddressedtoor 0"  signedbyanattorneyretainedbyapublicentityisnotspecificallyexcludedbythestatutes. #l!   AnentitycannotprotectpublicrecordsundertheActbyshieldingthembehindaprivate $D # attorneyorotherwisebyplacingtheminthepossessionofaprivateentity.Ifsomethingisapublic %0!$ record,itremainsapublicrecordregardlessofitsphysicallocation.SeeCreativeRestaurantsv. &"% CityofMemphis,795S.W.2d672,679(Tenn.Ct.App.1990). '#&   TheappellantarguesthattheActisinconsistentwithCanon4.Theappellantisnotasking )$( thisCourttodeclaretheActunconstitutional.Rather,theappellantarguesthatthecorrespondence |*%) fallswithinthebroadexceptionof otherwiseprovidedbystatelawcontainedintheAct.See h+&* Tenn.CodeAnn.10-7-503(a). ItiscertainlytruethattheLegislatureisforbiddenfromdestroying  anattorneysabilitytofulfillhisethicaldutiestoaclient.Memphis_Publg_ԀCo.,871S.W.2d681,  688.Werecognizethecompetinginterestsatstakeinthislawsuitbetweentheattorneysdutyand  therightofthepublictoaccesspublicrecords. t   ThecompetinginterestshavebeenaddressedpreviouslyconcerningtheOpenMeetingsAct: L  8   ` InSmithCountyEduc._Assn_Ԁv.Anderson,676S.W.2d328(Tenn.1984),we $ t heldthataprovisionoftheTennesseeOpenMeetingsActwhichprohibitedapublic  ` bodyfromholdingprivatemeetingscouldnotbeconstruedtopreventapublicbody  L  frommeetinginprivatewithitsattorneytodiscusspendinglitigation.Ifthestatute  8  weresoconstrued,westated,theattorneysabilitytofulfillhisdutynottorevealits $  clientssecretswouldbedestroyed.      ....   8   ` Weemphasize,however,thatanyattempttodiscovermaterialinthe   possessionofagovernmentalattorneythatactuallyconstitutesworkproductwillbe   unsuccessfulfortheabove-mentionedreasons.Therefore,weexpresslyinvitethe p Legislaturetoremedythe_underinclusiveness_Ԁof10-7-504byexceptingthework \ productofcountyandmunicipalattorneysfrompublicview.H   ?+ ` hp x X?Id.at688-89.  p   ThespecificissueinthepresentcaseconcernsCanon4andthegeneralexceptioncontained H intheAct.Canon4provides [a]lawyershouldpreservetheconfidencesandsecretsofaclient. 4 Sup.Ct.R.8,Canon4.   #XXX(XR#)XXXX8  Confidencereferstoinformationprotectedbytheattorneyclientprivilegeunder  applicablelaw,andsecretreferstootherinformationgainedintheprofessional  relationshipthattheclienthasrequestedbeheldinviolateorthedisclosureofwhich  wouldbeembarrassingorwouldbelikelytobedetrimentaltotheclient.l   8  (B)ExceptwhenpermittedunderDR4101(C),alawyershallnotknowingly:X    8  (1)Revealaconfidenceorsecretofaclient.D!   8  ....0"    8  (C)Alawyermayreveal:#l!   8  ....$X"   8  (2)ConfidencesorsecretswhenpermittedunderDisciplinaryRulesorrequiredby $D # laworcourtorder.%0!$   Id.DR4101(Emphasisadded). '#&   ThepreliminarystatementtoSupremeCourtRule8states: |*%)  h+&* 8   ` TheCanonsarestatementofaxiomaticnorms,expressingingeneralterms  thestandardsofprofessionalconductexpectedoflawyersintheirrelationshipswith  thepublic,withthelegalsystem,andwiththelegalprofession....   8   ` TheEthicalConsiderationsare_aspirational_Ԁincharacterandrepresentthe t objectivestowardwhicheverymemberoftheprofessionshouldstrive....`   8   ` TheDisciplinaryRules,unliketheEthicalConsiderations,aremandatoryin L  character.TheDisciplinaryRulesstatetheminimumlevelofconductbelowwhich 8  nolawyercanfallwithoutbeingsubjecttodisciplinaryaction.$ t   Sup.Ct.R.8CodeofProfessionalResponsibility,PreliminaryStatement.  L    InArnold,theEasternSectionofthisCourtconcludedthatworkproductsofanattorneyfor $  agovernmentalentitywerenotsubjecttodisclosureunderthePublicRecordsAct,iftheprivilege   werenotwaived_._ԀTheCourtstated:   8   ` ThePublicRecordsActistobebroadlyconstruedsoastogivethefullest   possiblepublicaccesstopublicrecords._T.C.A._Ԁ107505(d).Yet,thatActcreates p exceptionfordocumentsmadeprivilegedorprotectedfromdisclosurebyotherstate \ law.Justasimportantaspublicaccesstogovernmentrecords,istherightofaclient H toeffectiveassistanceofcounsel.Canon4oftheCodeofProfessional 4 Responsibility,mandatesthatanattorneynotbetraytheconfidencesofhisclient.  p Theprimarypurposeoftheworkproductprivilegeistoassurethatanattorneyisnot  \ inhibitedinhisrepresentationofhisclientbythefearhisfileswillbeopento H scrutinyupondemand.Moreover,iftheclientwereawarethatitssecrets,embodied 4 intheattorneysinternalmemorandumorotherdocument,wouldallbesubjectto   publicscrutiny,itwouldlimittheclientswillingnesstospeakopenlywithhisorher   attorneyandwouldconsequentlyaffecttheattorneysabilitytorepresenthisorher  client.   Arnold,19S.W.3d779,787. l   Inthepresentcase,wearenotdealingwiththeworkproductdoctrine.Theworkproduct D! doctrineprotectsdocumentsofanattorneypreparedbytheattorney,oranotherinhisbehalf,in 0"  preparationfortrialoranticipationoflitigation.Id.at783.Further,theappellantisnotarguing #l! attorneyclientprivilege,havingabandoneditinargument.Thefactthatrecordsaremerelysigned $X" byorwrittentoanattorneyisnotsufficientreasontoblockpublicaccess.Eventhoughthepublics $D # rightofinspectionisbroad,itisnotabsoluteandimportantcountervailinginterestscansometimes %0!$ outweightherightanddefeatthepresumptionofopennessifprovidedbylaw. &"%   TheSupremeCourtRulesarethelawofthisStateand,therefore,areincludedinthephrase (#' unlessotherwiseprovidedbyStatelaw.Tenn.CodeAnn.107503(a).Themandatory )$( disciplinaryrulesstatethat [a]lawyermayrevealconfidencesandsecretswhenrequiredbylawor |*%) courtorder.DR4101(C)(2). ItiscertainlytruethattheLegislatureisforbiddenfromdestroying h+&* anattorneysabilitytofulfillhisethicaldutiestoaclient.#XXX)Xٮa#2XXXXMemphis_Publg_ԀCo.,871S.W.2dat688.#XXX2Xټv#)XXXXԀ  Thus,anethicaldutyofanattorneyinTheCodeofProfessionalResponsibilitymaycreatean  exceptiontotheAct.Accordingly,Canon4mayexemptcertainconfidencesandsecretsfrom  inspectionundertheAct.InCombinedCommunications,Inc.v.SolidWasteRegionBoard,No.01 t A019310CN00441,1994WL123831,at*2(Tenn.Ct.App.April13,1994),thisCourtstated: ` 8   ` Thecourtsofthisstatehaveheldthatundersomecircumstances, 8  communicationsfromanattorneytohisclientthatmeetthedefinitionofapublic $ t recordmaybeexemptfromtheprovisionsofTenn.CodeAnn.107503.However,  `  theprivilegedoesnotextendtocommunicationsfromanattorneytoaclientwhen  L  theycontainadvicesolelybaseduponpublicinformationratherthanconfidential  8  information.$    CombinedCommunications,Inc.v.SolidWasteRegionBoard,No.01A019310CN00441,1994   WL123831,at*2(Tenn.Ct.App.April13,1994)(citingBryanv.StateofTennessee,848_S.W._Ԁ2d   72(_Tenn.Crim.App_.1992)).     Underourexerciseofreview,thecorrespondencethatisthesubjectofthislitigationdoes \ notcontainanyinformationofaconfidentialorsecretnature.Itcannotbesaidthatasageneralrule, H Rule4appliestoalldocumentswrittentoanattorneyorsignedbyanattorney.TheRulecannot 4 havesuchablanketapplication.  p #XXX)XJw#(XXXX  Afterexaminingthetotalityofthecircumstances,weaffirmthetrialcourtandfindthatthe H correspondenceaddressedtoorsignedbythe_SRCAA_Ԁattorneyshouldbeprovidedtotheappellee. 4   Withregardtothedocumentsunderseal,weorderthatthedocumentsremainundersealfor   thewell-statedreasoningbytheWesternSectionofthisCourt:    RecognizingthattheappellateprocessdoesnotendwiththisCourt,inordertopreventthe  issuefrombecomingmootuntilthejudicialprocessiscompleted,theoriginaldocumentsinitially l filedinasealedenvelopewiththechancerycourtandsubsequentlytransmittedtotheclerkofthis X  CourtinthesamemannershallremainsealedandclosedunderthejurisdictionoftheClerkofthis D! CourtuntilthetimeforfilinganApplicationforPermissiontoAppealtothesupremeCourthas 0"  expiredandthemandateofthisCourthasissuedor,intheeventApplicationforPermissionto #l! AppealismadetotheSupremeCourt,untilthatApplicationisacteduponbythatCourtandafinal $X" judgmententeredbytheSupremeCourt. $D #  X X?+ ` hp x X? X XE+ ` hp x X ECityofJacksonv.JacksonSun,Inc.,1988WL11515,at*6(Tenn.Ct.App.1988).#XXX(Xٷ~# &"%   ThejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmedwithcostsassessedtoAppellant. (#'    `     h     ______________________________________Ԁ |*%)    `     h     WILLIAMB.CAIN,JUDGE