Subpoena Issued, Invoices Missing in Richmond FOIA Whistleblower Lawsuit
An update on the Connie Clay FOIA whistleblower case, including a new FOIA revelation and a subpoena.
Back in May and June, I reported on the hundreds of thousands of dollars multinational law firm Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. has billed the Richmond City Attorney’s Office for legal services in former Richmond FOIA Officer Connie Clay’s whistleblower lawsuit against the government.
As of May 31, 2025, the date of the most recent invoice I acquired through FOIA:
If you combine these two bills with the over $130,000 detailed in my original article, Richmond is set to pay out over $230,000 in legal fees for a case that hasn’t even reached the trial phase yet, a case in which Clay originally sought $250,000 in damages.
These legal invoices have since become controversial in the Clay case. Former member of the Richmond School Board, Carol A.O. Wolf, observed the August 25, 2025 court hearing and reported on the acrimonious proceedings in Style Weekly:
By the end of May 2025, the city’s defense of this lawsuit, outsourced to the private law firm of Ogletree Deakins, had cost taxpayers $234,111.35. That number will certainly increase by the time the firm submits its billing for this summer, and the three-day trial scheduled for later this month from Sept. 23-25.
By comparison, City Attorney Laura Drewry is paid $323,000, which is up from her predecessor’s salary of $255,000 (a 27% increase) and more than the combined salaries of Richmond’s mayor and Virginia’s attorney general. Judge Cardwell’s salary of $203,540, as of July 1, is set by the Virginia General Assembly.
Clay is being represented by Sarah Robb Law, a single-person law firm specializing in employment law. On behalf of her client, Robb is asking for Clay’s job back, $250,000 in compensatory damages and attorney fees. Their salaries and bills are not available under FOIA law. In contrast, Ogletree Deakins employs more than 1,050 lawyers in 60 offices across the U.S., Canada, Mexico and Europe, according to its website.
Wolf continued:
After heated skirmishes during the Aug. 25 hearing between the lawyers concerning document production and texts from personal and professional cell phones of city employees, Cardwell had heard enough. She finally told the city’s lawyers to deliver the cell phones to her so she could review them in her chambers.
Robinson blames Clay for using FOIA to get the bills showing he has charged the city close to a quarter million dollars and disseminating that information to the media.
In response, Robinson recently asked the court to issue a gag order to prevent Clay from talking to the media and to block Clay from submitting future FOIAs, i.e., to deny Clay the same FOIA rights enjoyed by all Virginians.
Cardwell has yet to rule on his request.
Meanwhile, Robinson refuses to acknowledge that RTD reporter Samuel Parker, The Richmonder’s Moomaw, former assistant City Attorney Michael Sarahan and transparency advocate Josh Stanfield, all submitted FOIA requests for the bills and all insist they did not receive the bills from Clay or her lawyers.
The court record shows that Cardwell has repeatedly admonished the lawyers during the course of this case to essentially play nice.
On September 5, 2025, I sent a new FOIA request to the City Attorney’s office requesting “any invoices and billing statements from Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. concerning the case Clay v. City of Richmond et al.” from June 1, 2025 until the date of my request. The hope was to acquire the newest set of invoices.
That same day, Richmond Assistant City Attorney John Dickinson replied to my request:
You have requested “any invoices and billing statements from Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. concerning the case Clay v. City of Richmond et al.” dated between June 1, 2025, and the present. The Richmond City Attorney’s Office has no records responsive to your request because no invoices or billing statements have been received by this office since the invoice dated May 31, 2025.
Thank you for contacting the Richmond City Attorney’s Office.
No invoices or billing statements since May 31, 2025, despite the intense legal wrangling that’s taken place over the summer, and despite preparation for the multi-day jury trial set for later this month?
While it’s possible the government’s private law firm has transitioned to pro bono representation, it seems more likely they’re simply holding their invoices for the time being to prevent FOIA exposure and further publicity. Or perhaps they’re sending them to a new point of contact outside the City Attorney’s office. It remains an open question as to whether or not the firm is still receiving payments from the government, despite the lack of invoices beyond May.
Nevertheless, the case is proceeding to trial in Richmond Circuit Court on September 23, 24, and 25. This I know because, on August 31, 2025, I received an attorney-issued subpoena requiring my presence as a witness in the case from Clay’s lawyer, Sarah Robb.
While I’m not sure what information I can provide to help clarify the controversy in court, I suspect all parties involved will be relieved when this case comes to an end. And maybe, just maybe, we’ll finally have the records to calculate how much this ordeal has cost the people of Richmond.
Keep fighting the good fight. All state spending should— must— be made public. Full stop.