By Gina Tabonares
Variety News Staff

LEGAL representatives of the Office of the Governor are opposing the request of the lawyers who want to seal their billing records with the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) class.
Atty. Dan Benjamin, counsel for the Office of the Governor, told the court that sealing the records is not proper, arguing that the billing statements are generally not privileged.
He said that if the billing records are sealed, the EITC class would be prevented from knowing the most basic information any client should be provided with --- an explanation of what they are paying for.
On top of arguments on what method to use to calculate attorneys’ fees involved in the EITC class suit, lawyers are now in conflict whether their billing records should be made available to the public.
The issue surfaced after one EITC group lawyer requested to seal billing records with clients and was supported by two others invoking the provision on protection of detailed records.
There are at least three major law firms involved in the three consolidated EITC class actions: Mike Phillips represents the group of Julie Babauta Santos; Peter C. Perez is the lawyer for the Charmaine R. Torres class; and the group of Mary Grace Simpao hired the law firm of Van de Veld, Shimizu, Canto & Torres.
When U.S. District Court of Guam Chief Judge Frances Tydingco-Gatewood required the lawyers to submit their detailed billing records to their respective EITC class, Atty. Perez requested for in-camera review and the sealing of attorney billing fees.
Atty. Perez explained that their billing records are protected from being made public by the attorney-client privilege because the records reveal the nature of the services rendered.
"Because an attorney’s itemized bill necessarily reveals confidential information, it falls within the realm of the attorney-client privilege. The billing records should be subjected to an in-camera review and be sealed to assure the attorney-client privilege is not violated," Atty. Perez stated.
Atty. Phillips supported Atty. Perez’ position and told the court that the Ninth Circuit has long held that detailed billing statements are protected under the attorney-client privilege.
"The court should take such steps it deems necessary so as to preserve the privacy and confidentiality of the requested materials," Phillips said.
Objectors’ lawyer Atty. Thomas Fisher said an in-camera review or sealing of detailed billing records is appropriate under the circumstances of the EITC case as it opposed the release of the documents to the Office of the Governor.
"In order to preserve confidentiality and the confidentiality of counsels’ mental impressions, in-camera review is appropriate but release to the defendant is inappropriate since the litigation is ongoing," Atty. Fisher stated.
The Simpao group lawyer told the court to deny GovGuam’s request to view detailed billing records explaining that the local government has no role to play in the court’s evaluation of requests for common fund fee awards.
He said that the amount of fee to be awarded from the common fund is between the courts, plaintiffs’ counsel and class members and that it is the court, not the government that will assume the role of fiduciary to decide the merits of a fee application.
The issue on EITC attorneys’ fees will be heard on Nov. 20.