## Facts

- David O’Connor was an attorney representing the owners of Patrick’s Lounge.
- Law-enforcement officers suspected the owners had filed falsified liquor-license applications.
- Police received information that the owners’ records were located at O’Connor’s law office.
- Police obtained a warrant authorizing a search of the law office for the records.
- When officers attempted to execute the warrant, O’Connor refused to allow entry, but told officers the records were in a box and also referenced documents in his work-product file.
- O’Connor and the officers went to the chambers of Judge Johnson, where O’Connor moved to quash the warrant.
- Judge Johnson allowed O’Connor to keep his work-product file, but ordered O’Connor to leave the box of records with the court.
- Judge Johnson later ordered O’Connor to deliver the box to the police department and ordered a representative of the county attorney’s office to review O’Connor’s work-product file and provide to police all documents deemed not privileged.
- O’Connor petitioned the Minnesota Supreme Court for a writ of prohibition to stop enforcement of the warrant and related orders.
- After the petition was filed, Judge Johnson amended his order so that the court (not the county attorney’s office) would review the work-product file for privilege before any disclosure.

## Issues

1. Whether a search warrant seeking client-related records from an attorney’s office must be quashed because execution of the warrant risks disclosure of attorney-client privileged or work-product materials.
2. Whether a trial judge may permit the prosecuting authority (or its representative) to inspect an attorney’s work-product file to decide what is privileged.
3. What procedures a court should use to segregate privileged and work-product materials from nonprivileged materials when law enforcement seeks records held by a lawyer.

## Decision

- The court recognized that attorney-client privilege and work-product protection apply to qualifying communications and attorney-prepared materials, and that compelled exposure can cause harm that cannot be fixed after the fact.
- The court rejected the idea that the prosecuting authority should screen an attorney’s file for privilege; any screening must be done by the court or another neutral decisionmaker under court control.
- The court approved use of in camera review and controlled handling to separate protected materials from items that may be provided to investigators.
- The court granted relief to the extent the lower-court orders permitted prosecutorial review of the work-product file, and required judicial screening procedures designed to prevent disclosure of privileged or work-product material.
- The court permitted disclosure or delivery of materials not protected by privilege or work-product protection, subject to the court’s supervision and safeguards.

## Legal Principles

- Attorney-client privilege protects confidential client communications made for the purpose of obtaining legal advice, and work-product protection shields certain attorney materials prepared in anticipation of litigation.
- A search warrant is not automatically invalid simply because the place to be searched is a lawyer’s office, but courts must use procedures that reduce the risk that privileged or work-product material will be exposed.
- The prosecution may not be the initial reviewer of potentially privileged attorney files; privilege determinations must be made by the court (or a neutral person acting under the court’s direction).
- In camera review, segregation of materials, sealing, and controlled disclosure are proper tools to prevent disclosure of protected materials while allowing investigators access to nonprotected evidence.
- Extraordinary relief (such as prohibition) can be appropriate when a trial-court order threatens disclosure of privileged materials, because disclosure cannot be fully remedied later.

## Conclusion

O’Connor v. Johnson addresses how courts should handle a search warrant directed at materials located in a lawyer’s office: investigators may obtain nonprivileged records, but the court must prevent prosecutorial access to potentially privileged or work-product materials by requiring neutral, court-controlled screening (often through in camera review) and limiting any disclosure to items the court determines are not protected.


O'Connor v. Johnson, 287 N.W.2d 400 (1979)