Dm? letter, dated July 18, 2013, articulating
information that the private attorney would
need to provide requested legal advice
regarding Respondent?s personal professional
obligations under the West Virginia Rules of
Professional Conduct, should Respondent
become involved in the Cardinal Health
lawsuit in the future.

In the November 27, 2013, response,
Respondent went further that was required by
the Gazette?s FOIA request and the FOIA
statute and, in a spirit of cooperation and to
avoid needless litigation, disclosed the
existence of several non-responsive
documents. Out of an abundance of caution,
Respondent now adds this unedited draft
1etter?-?which is also not responsive to the
FOIA request and outside the scope of
FOIA?because this document is of a similar
character of those other non?responsive
documents. Respondent believes that this
documents provides helpful context for the
other non-responsive documents in this Index,
and reaf?rms the Respondent?s continuing
and ongoing efforts to remain in compliance
with all appropriate ethics rules.

 

 

Respondent withholds this information as
unresponsive to the Gazette?s FOIA request because
it contains no information regarding ReSpondent?s
involvement in matters pertaining to the State of W.
Va. v. Cardinal Health lawsuit.

This information is not a public record subject to
disclosure because it is a private communication
related to seeking personal legal advice from a
privately retained attorney.

Pursuant to the attomey?client privilege, this
information is not subject to disclosure because it is
a con?dential communication involving
information sought by Respondent?s private
attorney in his capacity as retained legal adviser in
order to provide legal advice.

Pursuant to the work product doctrine, this
document is not subject to disclosure as it was
prepared for purposes of Respondent seeking legal
advice regarding Respondent?s personal
professional obligations.

To the extent this Court concludes the e?mail is not
merely a private document, pursuant to the
deliberative process privilege, this document is not
subject to disclosure because it involves
consultative discussions regarding whether
Respondent could become involved in the Cardinal
Health litigation in the future. If such information
were to be released, it would adversely affect the
recommendations and counsel provided to
Respondent.