Coventry council stalls proposal to give all members access to town solicitor invoices after heated debate

The Coventry Town Council spent much of its meeting debating whether unredacted monthly invoices and time specifications from the town solicitor should be available to every council member.

The issue mattered because councilors said they wanted transparency over legal spending paid from the town budget, while the town solicitor warned that releasing detailed billing could waive attorney–client privilege and expose the town to legal risk. The council ultimately voted to table the resolution to expand access.

Resident Mark Hallis opened public comment on docketed items by urging broader access to legal billing. “Legal fees are paid with tax tax payer dollars, and every member of this council has an equal rate to review how those funds are spent,” Hallis told the council, saying that denying access undermined accountability.

Town Solicitor Angel responded at length during the council report, framing the question as a clash between transparency and the professional rules that govern lawyers. “Your charter is overruled in cases where the general assembly has ruled and the state supreme court has when the state supreme court makes law or when they make rules through the Administrative Procedures Act, those rules govern over any charter provision that you may have,” Angel said, adding repeatedly that detailed time entries and descriptions in ongoing matters are privileged and could create legal exposure if made public.

Several council members pushed back. Councilman LeBlanc asked bluntly, “Who is the client? Is it the president and vice president or is the entire town council?” Angel replied that the organizational client is the municipal corporation of Coventry and that, under the rules of professional conduct and authority he cited, time-by-time descriptions of legal work are not the same as the summary invoices the council already receives.

Vice President Verducci and others said they had drafted a resolution intended to add a layer of review and accountability by naming a second reviewer in addition to the president, not to publish privileged materials. Verducci described the draft as an effort to “add another layer of transparency” while preserving confidentiality of privileged details.

Councilman Copley said he had formally requested unredacted invoices and was dissatisfied by the finance director's response that the materials were not available, which helped spark the debate. Copley told the council he had obtained unredacted invoices from neighboring towns by public-record request and wanted the same access in Coventry.

After extended discussion, Councilman Brown moved to table the resolution (later identified in the meeting as Resolution 2025‑33). Councilman Capaldi seconded. The roll call vote to table was 7 in the affirmative, 0 opposed; the motion to table passed.

The council did not adopt a new access procedure during the meeting. Council members asked for additional legal research and for the town’s finance director and insurance/trust counsel to weigh in on whether broader internal review or distribution of redacted summaries would be permissible without creating liability. Council leadership and the solicitor said they would produce written legal memoranda and that the item would return to a future agenda.

Provenance: The council’s discussion of the solicitor contract, billing, and the draft resolution begins with the solicitor’s remarks to the council and continues through the motion to table (discussion and votes).