March 4, 2026

_{Media Contact: Suzie Weigel, 701.328.2210}

BISMARCK, ND – It is the opinion that federal law does not prevent the state from auditing P&A and even though P&A possesses confidential records, N.D.C.C. § 54-10-22.1 and 42 C.F.R. § 51.45(c) authorize the state auditor and the employees of the auditor’s office, to review the records without detriment to P &A.

Also, whether Rule 1.6 of the North Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct for licensed attorneys prohibits P&A from disclosing to the State Auditor the contents of a client file for the purpose of conducting a non-financial performance audit under N.D.C.C. ch. 54-10 when the requested file includes information about individuals and businesses in the private sector who chose to contact P &A.

This issue was already addressed in a 1995 opinion of this office regarding P&A. The 1995 opinion highlighted that P&A has authority to contract with private attorneys to represent private individuals. 17 During that performance audit, auditors asked to see billings from the contracted attorneys. 18 P&A redacted the names of the individuals represented by the contract attorneys under the rules for attorney-client privilege or attorney-client confidentiality. 19 The names of individuals seeking services of P&A are protected under N.D.C.C. § 25-01.3. The opinion stated:

Thus, P&A’s records which indicate to whom its services were provided are available to the State Auditor for performance audit purposes. The State Auditor has
been given access by P&A to its records other than the attorney’s billings. Therefore, the State Auditor already has access to the names of the persons to whom P&A
provides services. State law requires that the State Auditor and his employees must keep such information confidential.

Here, P&A has not identified a specific record. Given that, I rely on the past opinions declaring that records made confidential by N.D.C.C. § 25-01.3-10 are available under N.D.C.C. § 54-10-22 to the State Auditor and the Auditor’s employees for audit purposes.

Link to opinion 2026-L-01

###