Skip to main content

Walking the Line: What Paralegals in Private Practice Should Know About Public Records

Tina, a woman with brown hair, wears wire-rimmed glasses, a grey blouse and jacket and is smiling.
Tina Dadio

If you work in private practice, records management likely means client files, discovery obligations, retention policies and defensible destruction. Yet in state universities and other public institutions, the concept operates under a very different default.

Transparency, not confidentiality, is the starting point.

In today’s always-connected world, nearly everything we create digitally (i.e., emails, text messages, social media posts, even artificial intelligence [AI] prompts) has the potential to become part of the public record. For employees at public institutions, this reality creates a constant balancing act between transparency and confidentiality, personal expression and professional responsibility.

Understanding where that line is, and how not to cross it, is no longer optional. It’s essential.

What “Public Record” Really Means

Under North Carolina law, public records are broadly defined. They include virtually all documentary material, regardless of format, that is made or received in the transaction of public business. Emails, texts, calendars, digital files and electronic communications are all treated the same as paper documents. Most importantly, these records are legally considered the property of the people. (N.C. Gen. Stat. § 132-1)

What does matter is content and purpose.

The law also starts with a strong presumption of openness. Public records are considered the property of the people, and access is a right, not a privilege. Agencies don’t get to ask who’s requesting the record or why. If a record is withheld, the agency, not the requester, has to justify that decision under a specific legal exception.

In other words, transparency is the default.

Electronic Communications and Personal Devices

Technology has blurred the boundaries between personal and professional life, but public records law has not. The status of a record depends on its content and purpose, not where it lives. Emails sent from a personal account, texts on a personal phone, or documents saved to a personal computer can still be public records if they relate to official business.

This is why employees are strongly encouraged to avoid mixing personal matters with work communications, particularly when it comes to political activity or private commercial ventures. Convenience should never override compliance.

Understanding how public institutions manage records is not just academic. For paralegals handling subpoenas, litigation, government clients, or regulatory matters, it provides practical insight into how records are created, maintained and produced.

A Different Default: Public Versus Private

In private practice, most records are:

  • Confidential.
  • Privileged when applicable.
  • Controlled by the client.

In contrast, at a public university:

  • Most records are presumed public.
  • The institution must justify withholding.
  • Records are legally considered property of the public.

This difference in presumption shapes how employees communicate, store records and respond to requests.

Public Record Is Broader Than You Think

For public institutions, a public record includes almost any material created or received in the course of business, regardless of format.

This includes:

  • Emails and text messages.
  • Drafts and working documents.
  • Notes, calendars and internal communications.
  • Digital files, even informal ones.

Even more important, location does not matter. Content determines whether something is a record.

A work-related message on a personal phone or a file saved to a home computer may still be subject to disclosure.

For paralegals, this becomes relevant in subpoena responses, discovery involving public entities and investigations where scope is disputed.

Email Drafts and the Paper Trail

In private litigation, drafts are often evaluated based on privilege and relevance. Public institutions treat many drafts as public records, even if they may later be destroyed according to retention rules.

Similarly:

  • Emails are categorized by content.
  • The creator is responsible for maintaining the official record copy.
  • Routine communications can fall under retention requirements.

For paralegals, this helps explain why documents exist, or why they no longer exist, in productions from public entities.

Retention Schedules: Structured, Not Optional

Public universities follow formal records retention schedules that define:

  • How long records must be kept.
  • When records must be destroyed or archived.
  • Which records are permanent.

These schedules are driven by law and policy, not individual judgment.

In private practice, retention policies vary widely and may not always be applied consistently.

Understanding public sector retention systems can help explain:

  • Organized archives.
  • Predictable gaps due to lawful destruction.
  • Documentation of disposition decisions.

Confidentiality Exists, But It Is Limited

Unlike private practice, where confidentiality is assumed, public institutions operate with specific and narrow exceptions.

Examples include:

  • Student records protected by FERPA.
  • Personnel files.
  • Health information.
  • Attorney-client communications.
  • Trade secrets.

For paralegals reviewing productions, this affects how redactions and privilege claims should be evaluated.

Confidentiality must be justified, not presumed.

Legal Holds Where Both Worlds Align

One area where private and public practice overlaps is legal holds.

When litigation is anticipated:

  • Routine destruction must stop.
  • Relevant records must be preserved.
  • Destruction can lead to spoliation issues.

Public institutions often layer legal holds on top of retention schedules to ensure compliance.

For paralegals, this usually means clear documentation of preservation efforts, although failures can still carry serious consequences.

AI Is Here . . . and It Creates Records Too

As generative AI tools become more common in the workplace, they introduce new public records considerations. Prompts entered into AI systems are electronic records when they are created or used for official business. Whether they are informal brainstorming notes or substantive drafts supporting decision-making, AI inputs and outputs may require retention and could be subject to disclosure.

Critically, prompts do not lose their public-record status simply because they were entered into consumer or third-party tools. Content, not platform, controls the status. Employees should therefore draft AI prompts with the same care they would apply to an email or memo and should never input confidential or legally protected information into unapproved tools.

Artificial Intelligence and Records

Both sectors are now facing the same question.

What happens when artificial intelligence tools are used in daily work?

At public institutions:

  • Prompts and outputs connected to official work may be considered public records.
  • They may need to be retained and could be subject to disclosure.

For paralegals, this raises practical concerns:

  • Are AI-assisted drafts discoverable?
  • Are prompts part of work product analysis?
  • Has confidential data been shared with third-party systems?

Public institutions are already dealing with legal and compliance questions about AI prompts that private practice may likely face soon.

Why This Matters to Paralegals

In more concrete legal terms, it’s pointing to emerging issues like:

  • Whether AI prompts are discoverable.
  • Whether AI outputs are part of the record.
  • How retention obligations apply to AI-generated content.
  • Whether use of AI affects privilege or work product.

Public institutions are already answering these questions because they have to classify and retain records immediately. Private organizations may often have more flexibility and lag behind.

Practical Takeaways for Paralegals

Understanding public records frameworks can strengthen your practice:

  • Expect broader document scope when dealing with public entities.
  • Do not assume absence means nonexistence.
  • Review retention schedules to understand timing and gaps.
  • Evaluate confidentiality claims carefully.
  • Recognize that informal communication can be part of the record.

A Helpful Perspective

A useful way to think about the difference is this:

In private practice, the question is often whether something is discoverable.
In the public sector, the question begins with why it would not be.

Walking the Line in a Digital Environment

Navigating public records, artificial intelligence tools and social media is not about fear or restriction. It is about awareness. Thoughtful choices, careful drafting and a clear understanding of your role go a long way toward protecting both individuals and the organizations they serve.

For public employees, every communication carries the possibility of public review. For paralegals in private practice, understanding that reality provides important context when handling discovery, compliance and matters involving public institutions. It also offers insight into how emerging issues, particularly those involving new technologies, may develop more broadly across the legal profession.

The systems may differ. The assumptions may not be the same.

But the challenge is increasingly shared.

Whether in private practice or public service, the responsibility is ultimately the same: to manage information deliberately, ethically, and with the understanding that nearly everything created in a professional capacity may one day need to be explained, produced or defended.

In the digital age, professionalism doesn’t stop when you log out. It follows you . . . one click, post or prompt at a time.

Tina Dadio serves as the University Public Records Officer and has been a paralegal in the Office of Legal Affairs since July 2010. She brings more than 30 years of experience in the paralegal profession, including prior work with litigation law firms in North Carolina and Connecticut. Tina holds a bachelor’s degree in legal studies from Quinnipiac University in Hamden, Connecticut.

She has been an active member of the North Carolina Bar Association Paralegal Division since 2014, where she currently serves as Co-Chair of the Communications Committee and previously held the role of Chair for the 2019-2020 term. Tina’s professional excellence has been recognized through several honors, including UNC Charlotte’s 2015 Employee of the Year (Devotion of Duty) award for outstanding state government service. She has also been featured in Inside UNC Charlotte’s FACES newsletter and Carolina Paralegal News.

In addition, Tina contributes to the Higher Education Legal Managers (HELM) Association as a member of its governance committee.

***

The Paralegal Division Blog is managed by the Division’s Communications Committee. Via the blog, the Communications Committee provides information written by attorneys, paralegals, and other experts designed specifically for paralegals in the areas of substantive law, ethics, technology, paralegal practice advice, and more. If you are interested in signing up to submit a blog post on a future date, you can do so here. When you are ready to submit a blog post, you can do so by using this form.

You may also wish to participate in the Division by using our virtual suggestion box to submit suggestions/ideas to the Division Council, nominating a paralegal for Paralegal Spotlight, or completing the Paralegal Spotlight Questionnaire if you are nominating yourself. If you are interested in volunteering with the Communications Committee, please contact the Communications Committee Chair at [email protected]. If you are interested in joining other division committees, you can review a list of committees and sign up here.