Blunt's Office Files Bar Complaint on Eckersley, Silently Admitting He Advised on Email Policy

In a strange move, Matt Blunt's office has filed a bar complaint against Scott Eckersley, claiming that Eckersley "breached his confidentiality" about his time as the Governor's lawyer after he was fired in late September.  By claiming his privilege as a legal client was violated by Eckersley's conversations with the press, Blunt implicitly recognizes and confirms the fact that he has long denied --that Eckersley specifically advised him that he was breaking laws regarding the retention of emails.  Jo Mannies reports:

"Since his termination, Eckersley has spoken to the media about his
work at the governor’s office, revealing aspects of this work and
relationship that are properly confidential," said the complaint,
signed by Blunt chief counsel Henry Herschel.

The complaint claims that Eckersley's conversations with the media violated the privilege owed by attorney Eckersley to his client, Blunt.  Therefore the logical calculations are not complex. 

­Since the only representational matter from the Governor's office which Eckersley has discussed with the media centers on the advice he gave the Governor on email retention, the bar complaint filed by the Governor's office serves as confirmation that Eckersley did, indeed, give that advice.  If Eckersley's advisory protestations about email retention were imaginary, as Blunt has suggested throughout the scandal, then the bar complaint against Eckersley is plainly frivolous, as it would be intended to reprimand Eckersley for betraying confidences about advice he never gave.

In other words, the Blunt Administration is tacitly admitting that Scott Eckersley advised the Governor's top staff that their office's email deletion policy was plainly in derogation of state law.  That is a reversal of course by Team Blunt, which has contended that Eckersley never brought up any objection to the Governor's email retention policy until he was fired.  

Odd that Blunt would make what amounts to an admission of guilt and of systemic violations of open records laws for little more than some cheap retribution against Scott Eckersley.  Guess that's just the kind of guy he is.