The latest public records case to reach the Washington State Supreme Court gives the justices a chance to narrow the scope of attorney-client privilege, which governmental bodies have increasingly invoked to thwart public records requests.

If properly applied, the privilege has its place. Public officials can’t build effective legal strategies if their every move is broadcast. But when the privilege is invoked to shield the facts of an incident from the public, then it ought to be viewed as a clear violation of the state’s public records law.

In this case, Spokane Public Schools has invoked attorney-client privilege in declining to turn over the investigative files in the case of Nathan Walters, a third-grader with a known peanut allergy who died on a field trip in 2001 after eating a peanut butter cookie.

The district notes that the former police investigator who conducted the probe was directed and overseen by attorneys, and therefore the results should fall under the ever-widening catch basin known as “attorney work product.”

This argument has won the day thus far, with the state Court of Appeals upholding a ruling that the city had lawfully rejected The Spokesman-Review’s request for the investigative files. Many government entities across the state are supporting the school district’s postion, and the case is now in front of the state Supreme Court, with a ruling expected in three to six months.

But judging from the questions posed to the school district’s attorneys on Tuesday, it would appear the justices are beginning to understand the ramifications of an expansive interpretation of attorney-client privilege. The court itself helped spark the expansion when it narrowly decided in Hangartner vs. City of Seattle that records related to a proposed monorail project could be kept from the public in anticipation of lawsuits.

Ever since, municipalities and school districts have lobbied the Legislature to codify that ruling.

If that were to happen, Justice Tom Chambers said Tuesday, public entities would only need to introduce attorneys to a controversy to keep information from the public. Justice Barbara Madsen noted that the school district’s interpretation of attorney work product could result in the routine shielding of information in the most serious incidents.

The school district’s position ought to be viewed as a perversion of the state’s public records law, which states that public officials should err on the side of disclosure.

Public entities have successfully lobbied the Legislature for more than 70 exceptions to the public records law, and they are now cheering Spokane Public Schools as it seeks an overly broad interpretation for attorney-client privilege.

If the state Supreme Court doesn’t put a stop to the erosion, the next stop will have to be the state Legislature, which has its own interests in clamping down on public information and has thus far declined to close the attorney-client loophole.

It took a citizens’ initiative to adopt a public records law to begin with. Another burst of public involvement might be the only way to preserve it.