Mayor Brandon Scott defends limiting Inspector General access to legal files as transparency concerns escalate

A dispute over record access moves into public view

Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott’s administration is defending a decision that removed an Inspector General-related account’s access to certain Law Department files, arguing the step was necessary to protect attorney-client privilege and confidential attorney work product. The move has triggered renewed debate over how independently Baltimore’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) can operate when it seeks records tied to potential wrongdoing or mismanagement inside city government.

The dispute centers on access controls to Law Department electronic files and whether changes made in January 2026 functionally restrict the OIG’s ability to conduct timely investigations. City officials have said a permissions review identified an account associated with the OIG that had gained unauthorized access to legally protected materials. The administration has maintained that removing this access would not impede the OIG’s lawful work.

City’s position: privilege and professional rules required immediate action

The administration’s public explanation focused on attorneys’ ethical obligations to preserve privileged communications. City officials said the access issue was discovered after a Law Department lawyer found an unauthorized account with access to confidential files, prompting an audit and the removal of accounts deemed unauthorized. The city has framed the action as a compliance measure tied to professional conduct rules governing confidentiality.

In statements released by the administration, officials emphasized that the access in question was not authorized for a current OIG investigation and that routine oversight functions could continue without the disputed access.

OIG response: oversight depends on direct, timely access to records

Inspector General Isabel Mercedes Cumming has publicly argued that the OIG’s work requires full and direct access to city records to investigate allegations of fraud, waste, and abuse. Cumming has also raised concerns that changes to administrative access could affect the office’s ability to manage sensitive investigative information, including matters involving whistleblower confidentiality and ethics-related documentation.

The OIG has recently outlined its position in a publicly released paper approved by its citizens-based advisory board in early December 2025, arguing that oversight requests should not be treated as routine public-records requests and that delays or restrictions can undermine investigations and increase risk to taxpayer funds.

Context: tensions over oversight and public accountability

The dispute has unfolded alongside broader scrutiny of transparency and accountability mechanisms in Baltimore, including public debates over the resourcing and independence of watchdog entities. The OIG’s mandate includes investigating city agencies and programs, issuing findings, and recommending reforms. City officials, for their part, have underscored the need to safeguard privileged legal communications—an area that can intersect with investigations when the Law Department itself holds key documents.

Key unresolved questions

• What categories of files and systems were affected by the access changes, and whether any non-privileged investigative materials were swept into the restrictions.
• What process will govern future OIG requests for Law Department-held records, including timelines, redactions, and dispute resolution.
• How the city will ensure attorney-client privilege is protected while preserving the OIG’s ability to independently verify spending, procurement, and conduct across departments.

The administration has framed the issue as a privilege-protection compliance step; the Inspector General has framed it as an operational barrier that risks delaying or limiting oversight.

As of early February 2026, both sides continue to present competing characterizations of the practical impact. The outcome will help define how Baltimore balances privileged legal confidentiality with the independence and effectiveness of its primary internal watchdog.