Lawyer who formerly was appointed county commissioner is not subject to 2-year post-officeholding representation restriction of F.S. 112.313(14).  [Added 9/30/09]

    Lawyer was appointed by the Governor to serve as a county commissioner during the suspension of a subsequently reinstated county commissioner.  Lawyer never was a candidate for election and never stood for election.  Lawyer asked the Florida Commission on Ethics for its opinion whether he was subject to the 2-year post-officeholding restriction of F.S. 112.313(14) regarding his representation of clients before county government.  The Commission answered in the negative.

    F.S. 112.313(14) provides in pertinent part:  "A person who has been elected to any county, municipal, special district, or school district office may not personally represent another person or entity for compensation before the government body or agency of which the person was an officer for a period of 2 years after vacating that office. . . ."  (Emphasis in Commission opinion.)  The Commission noted that the statute must be strictly construed toward Lawyer "due to its penal nature" and that the language of the statute "would not have put [Lawyer], a citizen responsive to the Governor's appointment to temporary public service, on notice that [he] subsequently would be restricted in [his] economic/professional pursuits."  The Commission distinguished several of its prior opinions.  Florida Commission on Ethics Opinion 2009-16.

Lawyer who is school board member would not have conflict prohibiting him from voting to select lawyer in member's former law firm as school board attorney.  [Added 8/7/09]

    Lawyer is a member of a county school board.  Lawyer recently resigned from a large law firm.  One of the firm's attorneys is a finalist for the position of school board attorney.  Lawyer asked the Florida Commission on Ethics whether he would face a prohibited conflict if he participated in the vote to hire the school board attorney.

    The Commission on Ethics concluded that a voting conflict under F.S. 112.3143(3)(a) was not present.  "[W]e find that you will not be presented with a voting conflict regarding votes/measures concerning the candidate and the School Board Attorney selection process, including the vote to hire the candidate as School Board Attorney, should he be the successful applicant."  Florida Commission on Ethics Opinion 09-12.

Prohibited conflict exists if other lawyers in county commissioner's law firm represent clients before the commission.  [Added 8/7/09]

    County Commissioner is "of counsel" to Law Firm (although he actually holds the title of "partner").  Commissioner essentially is an employee of Law Firm and does not share in the profits of the firm.  Commissioner asked the Florida Commission on Ethics if it would be permissible for other lawyers in Law Firm to represent clients before the County Commission.  Commissioner would take no part is such representations, other members of the firm would not lobby him, he would not lobby other commissioners, and he would not "participate in any way in the representation of the firm's clients in matters relating to the County Commission or the County."  The firm's clients would be fully informed of these facts.

    The Commission on Ethics answered the inquiry in the negative, citing F.S. 112.313(7)(a).  Commissioner has a contractual relationship with Law Firm and its clients.  See Commission on Ethics Opinions 96-1, 07-13.  "Therefore, we find, as we have in several situations similar to the Commissioner's, that his contractual relationship with the firm OR with clients of the firm would create a continuing or frequently recurring conflict between his private interests and the performance of his public duties, or would impede the full and faithful discharge of his public duties, under the second part of the statute, in the event a firm member represents a client before the County Commission."  (Emphasis in original.)

    The Commission on Ethics further concluded that Commissioners status with Law Firm as "of counsel" did not change the result:  "[A]ssuming the Commissioner's relationship to his firm to be a true 'Of Counsel' relationship, a relationship arguably less beholden or tied to the interests of a firm or its clients than that of a partner, shareholder, or associate, we find that the prohibited conflict would nevertheless exist, due to his contractual relationship with the firm and a duty of loyalty to the firm's clients which would create a conflict when the firm was representing a client before the County Commission."

    In a footnote, the Commission on Ethics pointed out that "we find that a prohibited conflict under Section 112.313(7)(a) would not be created for the Commissioner due to representation by other members of his law firm before County boards other than the County Commission.  These representations should be reported on CE Form 2 (Quarterly Client Disclosure); and the Commissioner should contact The Florida Bar regarding such representations."  Florida Commission on Ethics Opinion 09-10.

Public official who defended ethics complaint may recover attorney's fees incurred in proving entitlement to and amount of fees  [Added 4/20/09]

    Mayor was the subject of a ethics complaint filed by Complainant.  Apparently Mayor prevailed.  The Administrative Law Judge awarded Mayor attorney's fees and costs that he incurred in defending the complaint, but denied Mayor's request for fees and costs "for the administrative hearing to determine the amount of the award and Dr. Milanick's attempt to obtain discretionary review by the Florida Supreme Court."  When Complainant appealed, Mayor cross-appealed the denial of fees.

    The Fifth DCA reversed on Mayor's fee issue.  "Section 112.317[(8)], Florida Statutes (2007), entitles [Mayor] to an award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred in defending against the ethics complaint.  This includes proving entitlement to and the amount of those costs and fees, including fees and expenses incurred after the  administrative hearing.  . . .  We hold that [Mayor] was entitled to an award of attorney's fees and costs incurred in connection with the September 28, 2007 hearing, including services rendered both during and after the hearing.  [Mayor] is not entitled, however, to any fees or costs for services rendered in connection with the supreme court proceeding."  Milanick v. Osborne, 6 So.3d 729 (Fla. 5th DCA2009) (on motion for clarification).

Law authorizing Legislature to discipline lobbyists does not violate separation of powers doctrine or infringe on Supreme Court's authority to regulate lawyers  [Added 3/20/2009]

    The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit had before it an appeal of a challenge by the Florida Association of Professional Lobbyists to legislation (referred to as "the Act," and now codified at Fla. Stat. sec. 11.045 and 112.3215) passed by the Florida Legislature that regulates and disciplines lobbyists. Eleventh Circuit certified 3 questions to the Florida Supreme Court, 2 of which were:  "(1) whether the Act violates Florida's separation of powers doctrine; and . . . (3) whether the Act infringes on the Florida Supreme Court's exclusive jurisdiction to regulate lawyers and the practice of law."  The Florida Supreme Court answered both questions in the negative.

    Regarding the separation of powers issue, the Court concluded:  "The Florida Constitution does not explicitly prohibit any of the functions set out in the Act.  Although the constitution does not give the Legislature the exclusive power to discipline lobbyists, it also does not prevent it from doing so.  . . .  Therefore, since the regulation, discipline, and licensing of lobbyists is not subject to the control of any branch or office, the Legislature is not prohibited from using its own discretion and judgment to accomplish the task."

    Turning to the issue of whether the Act infringed on its exclusive jurisdiction to regulate lawyers and the practice of law, the Court discussed the definitions of lobbying and of the practice of law.  The Court then stated:  "Given the differences between the two activities, we conclude that lobbying as defined by the Act does not constitute the practice of law.  Accordingly, we find that lobbyists, who may also be lawyers when engaged in lobbying activities, may be regulated and disciplined for their actions or inactions as prescribed by the Act.  We also find that those regulations and disciplinary actions described in the Act do not infringe on this Court’s jurisdiction to regulate and discipline lawyers, who may also be lobbyists, in matters relating to their practice of law."  Florida Ass'n of Professional Lobbyists, Inc. v. Division of Legislative Information Services, 7 So.3d 511 (Fla. 2009).

Lawyer who acts as city attorney because his firm was retained as independent contractor must comply with financial disclosure law.  [Added 12/17/08]  --  Florida Commission on Ethics Opinion 08-27.

Florida Commission on Ethics addresses conflict issues presented by lawyer who is employee/general counsel of county health facilities authority and principal in private law firm.  [Added 8/6/08]  --  Florida Commission on Ethics Opinion 08-15.

Florida Commission on Ethics renders opinion on possible voting conflict of non-lawyer law firm member who acts as a lobbyist.  [Added 6/25/08]  --  Florida Commission on Ethics Opinion 08-13.

Financial disclosure laws apply to Regional Counsel (but not assistant counsel) in new Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel offices.  [Added 4/30/08]  --  Florida Commission on Ethics Opinion 08-9.

Public official falsely accused of ethics law violations not required to prove "actual malice" to recover fees and costs from accusers.  [Added 12/5/07]  --  Brown v. Florida Comm'n on Ethics, 969 So.2d 553 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (on rehearing).

Florida Commission on Ethics advises that conflict of interest under Florida ethics laws exists when member of city commissioner's law firm represents clients before Commission, but not before other city Boards.  [Added 6/7/07]  --  Florida Commission on Ethics Opinion 07-13.

Florida Commission on Ethics advises that law firm can be "lobbying firm" under state ethics law if even one firm lawyer is registered to lobby.  [Added 6/7/07]  --  Florida Commission on Ethics Opinion 07-08.

Florida Commission on Ethics order denying attorney's fees to subject of ethics complaint is reversed by Fifth DCA.  [Added 2/21/07]  --  Osborne v. Commission on Ethics, 951 So.2d 25 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007).

Florida Commission on Ethics opines whether conflict of interest exists where member of housing authority is partner in law firm that provides legal services to housing authority.  [Added 2/21/07]  --  Florida Commission on Ethics Opinion 07-1.

Former Brevard County Commission may not lobby county staff nor attend county commission for 2 years after leaving office.  [Added 1/8/07]  --  Florida Commission on Ethics Opinion CEO 06-22.

Bar Board of Governors revised ethics opinion to broaden ability of county attorney to represent individual county commission members charged by Florida Commission on Ethics.  Florida Ethics Opinion 77-30 (Reconsideration).

Florida Commission on Ethics opines that lawyer formerly employed by state agency cannot represent clients against agency for 2 years after leaving its employ.  Florida Commission on Ethics Opinion 06-1.

Appeals court reverses Ethics Commission order finding that lawyer/public official violated state ethics laws on conflict of interest.  Fanizza v. State of Florida, Commission on Ethics, 927 So.2d 23 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006).

State ethics law does not require recusal of or disclosure by lawyer who, as city commissioner, would vote on ordinance relating to private client's area of business.  Florida Commission on Ethics Opinion 05-15.

Former "OPS" state agency lawyer not covered by law restricting post-employment representation of private clients before agency.  Florida Commission on Ethics Opinion CEO 05-1.

Trial court staff attorneys not required to file financial disclosure statements under Fla.Stat. sec. 112.3145  Florida Commission on Ethics Opinion CEO 03-12.