City of Davenport v. Office of Auditor of State of Iowa

── City of Davenport v. Office of Auditor of State of Iowa ── Court: Supreme Court of Iowa Date: April 17, 2026 Category: General In the Iowa Supreme Court No. 24–1160 Submitted March 25, 2026—Filed April 17, 2026 City of Davenport, Appellant, vs. Office of Auditor of State of Iowa, Appellee. Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Jeffrey D. Bert, judge. A city seeks interlocutory review of a district court order determining that the auditor of state may have access to attorney–client privileged materials. District Court Ruling Reversed and Case Remanded. Mansfield, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which all participating justices joined. Waterman, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. Brett R. Marshall (argued) and Richard A. Davidson of Lane & Waterman LLP, Davenport, for appellant. John McCormally (argued), General Counsel to the Iowa Auditor of State, for appellee. Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Eric Wessan, Solicitor General, for amicus curiae State of Iowa.  2 Mansfield, Justice. I. Introduction. The Iowa Auditor of State has authority to audit state officers and departments, political subdivisions of the state, and certain related organizations. See Iowa Code §§ 11.2, .6 (2024). In the course of these audits, the Auditor is granted “full access to all papers, books, records, and documents of any officers or employees,” including records “required by law to be kept confidential.” Id. § 11.41(2), (3). There are some identified exceptions, but the attorney–client privilege isn’t one of them. See id. § 11.41(4)(a). We must decide whether the attorney–client privilege is nonetheless an implied exception to the Auditor’s subpoena authority. We conclude that it is. The privilege is universally recognized in Iowa, and has been since the founding of our state. We hold that the attorney–client privilege limits the Auditor’s subpoena power, just as it limits the subpoena power of other investigative agencies in Iowa. This case comes to us on interlocutory review of a district court order that granted the Auditor access to attorney–client privileged communications. We reverse that order, and we remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. II. Facts and Procedural Background. We previously entered a procedural order in this case which summarized the facts and procedural history. See City of Davenport v. Off. of Auditor, 28 N.W.3d 584, 586–90 (Iowa 2025). To summarize, this case arose from the City of Davenport’s decision to settle three harassment claims brought by city employees for payments totaling approximately $1.9 million. The settlements were publicly approved by the city  3 council in December 2023, but allegations surfaced that they had been reached before the November 2023 city election, with the announcement intentionally delayed until after the election. The Auditor decided to conduct a reaudit of the City, focusing on the settlements. In connection with that audit, he served a subpoena on the City. The subpoena sought, among other things, documents pertaining to the settlements and the minutes and recordings of closed city council sessions held in late 2023. The City produced some documents but objected to producing others on the basis of the attorney–client privilege and the attorney work-product privilege. The City also filed a motion in the Scott County District Court to modify the subpoena. The Auditor countered by filing an application for enforcement of the subpoena in the same proceeding. The district court issued two orders. In the first order, it directed that the minu