A San Mateo County judge ordered the county to release some expense records from retired Judge LaDoris Cordell’s corruption and misconduct investigation into Sheriff Christina Corpus while keeping certain witness details confidential. As of press time Friday, those records remained sealed.
In April, Corpus’ lawyers filed a lawsuit to compel the release of supporting documents, including financial records, tied to the Cordell investigation. That probe prompted calls for Corpus to step down and led to a special election in March that granted the board the power to remove a sheriff with cause until Corpus’ term ends in 2028.
The lawsuit against the county stemmed from a public records request by the sheriff’s legal team in March, which the county had denied, citing attorney-client privilege.
Related Articles
Two new housing projects break ground in San Mateo County
Sheriff Corpus takes stand as San Mateo County removal hearings close
Alef Aeronautics to begin flying car tests at Half Moon Bay, Hollister airports
San Mateo County executive testifies in sheriff removal hearing
Former chief of staff testifies in San Mateo sheriff removal hearing
A ruling was issued Aug. 29 by Judge Jeffrey Finigan, just as Corpus’ legal team was concluding arguments in a two-week removal hearing process.
“It is hard to imagine what different/additional information could exist in her retainer agreement that would qualify as covered by the attorney/client privilege and outweigh the purpose of the CPRA (public records act) request and the public’s right to know what their government is doing,” Finigan said in his ruling.
The judge ordered the county to release the contract with Cordell and any documents submitted for her compensation, including timesheets and invoices.
However, Finigan denied the release of two other categories of documents: records of payments made to Cordell, because the county said it did not possess them; and requests for public funds or budget authorization for the contract, because they were not part of the original public records request.
In his ruling, Finigan determined the county had waived its right to claim attorney-client or work-product privilege over the documents by publicly releasing Cordell’s report, which included her findings and impressions of witnesses. He also stipulated that any witness identities redacted in the Cordell report remain confidential and may be redacted from the records produced.
Although the ruling only partially favored the sheriff, Corpus’ attorney Matthew Frauenfeld said he was grateful and called the county’s prior claims of attorney-client privilege an overreach.
“We are pleased the court ordered disclosure of these records,” Frauenfeld said. “The county has taken an overly broad view of privilege, invoking attorney-client privilege and work product to block access to basic documents like contracts, invoices, and timesheets. That looks less like a legitimate claim than an effort to avoid transparency.”
Frauenfeld also called the ruling a “meaningful step for transparency.”
“Privilege cannot be used as both a sword and a shield,” he said. “The county cannot rely on the report to persuade voters to pass Measure A and justify removal proceedings, while at the same time shielding the underlying contract, invoices, and timesheets from public view.”
Meanwhile, the county, through spokesperson Effie Milionis Verducci, told this news organization that it is “still evaluating a response and whether it will appeal.” Verducci added that, “as with all public records matters, the County evaluates each request individually and will continue to do so in accordance with applicable law.”
While the county had announced in January it spent almost $200,000 on the investigation by Cordell at a rate of $750 an hour, it didn’t include receipts or invoices.
For months, multiple media outlets, including this organization, have sought an estimate of the total cost of the removal efforts to taxpayers, including legal fees, investigative costs, and other related expenses. The county has denied these requests, citing attorney-client privilege and arguing that receipts and other payment records are privileged work product. This news organization has continued to seek the release of expenses.
David Loy of the First Amendment Coalition said he supports releasing expense records in the name of transparency, while acknowledging complications when litigation or legal action are ongoing.
“Attorney-client privilege never expires,” Loy said. “While a matter is ongoing, the entire amount of fees is still covered by the privilege, but once a matter is closed, the privilege no longer attaches entirely just to the billing records.”
Given the focus on the Cordell investigation, Loy said the impact is likely limited to that report.
“Her work for the county is concluded and finished, and for that reason, attorney-client privilege does not necessarily bar the release of billing records once a matter is closed,” he said.
Corpus has sought relief from multiple county and federal courts to try to stop county-initiated removal efforts, which her lawyers say violate her due process rights as an elected official and a law enforcement officer. All judges so far have declined to intervene in the process.
The sheriff and her legal team have repeatedly assailed Cordell’s report, commissioning their own review by former Riverside County Superior Court Judge Burke Strunsky, who criticized Cordell’s reliance on anonymous sources and unrecorded interviews.
Retired Judge James Emerson presided over the county’s removal hearings, which wrapped up last week, and has 45 days to issue a written advisory opinion. The board then has 30 days to review, with a four-fifths majority vote needed to dismiss her. If removed, Corpus would be the first sheriff in the state to be ousted by a board of supervisors.
If Corpus is removed, the board would have 30 days to appoint a replacement or call a special election. If no such action is taken, the county elections office must schedule one.