## Facts

- William J. Corvo failed the July 1983 Connecticut bar examination and requested records from the Connecticut Bar Examining Committee concerning the examination, including committee composition, scoring protocols, identities of graders, and criteria for grader competency.
- The Committee denied the request, asserting it functioned as an arm of the judiciary performing adjudicative (nonadministrative) work outside the scope of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) provisions applicable to the Judicial Department.
- Corvo complained to the Freedom of Information Commission (FOIC), which found the Committee to be a public agency subject to FOIA and ordered disclosure on the view that the Committee’s functions were administrative.
- On the Committee’s appeal, the Superior Court concluded the Committee’s bar-admission role was judicial rather than administrative and reversed the FOIC’s disclosure order.
- The FOIC appealed to the Connecticut Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether the Connecticut Bar Examining Committee, as an arm of the judiciary, is subject to FOIA.
2. Whether requested bar-examination records are “records relating to the administrative functions” of the Judicial Department and therefore subject to disclosure.
3. What standard governs separating disclosable administrative records from nondisclosable records tied to the Committee’s judicial bar-admission functions.

## Decision

- The Connecticut Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court’s judgment.
- The Court held the Committee acts as an arm of the judiciary and performs both judicial (adjudicative) and administrative functions.
- The Court rejected the FOIC’s view that all Committee functions were administrative and rejected the trial court’s view that none were administrative.
- The Court remanded for a record-by-record determination of which requested records relate solely to administrative functions and whether disclosure of any such records would interfere with the Committee’s judicial functions.

## Legal Principles

- FOIA applies to the Judicial Department only for records related to its administrative functions.
- An entity acting as an arm of the judiciary may perform both judicial and administrative functions; FOIA reaches only the administrative portion.
- Bar admission and evaluation of applicant qualifications are judicial in nature; routine managerial and operational matters may be administrative.
- Courts must evaluate requested materials individually to determine (1) whether they are purely administrative and (2) whether disclosure would interfere with judicial functions.

## Conclusion

The court required a functional, record-specific approach: the Bar Examining Committee is not categorically exempt from FOIA, but only records solely administrative in character and not interfering with judicial bar-admission functions may be compelled for disclosure.


Conn. Bar Examining Comm. v. Freedom of Info. Comm’n, 209 Conn. 204, 550 A.2d 633 (Conn. 1988)