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]

    A Florida Village Commissioner is employed by Law Firm as a lobbyist.  Commissioner is a salaried, non-lawyer employee.  Law Firm provides lobbying services to Public Utility.  The Village commission will be voting on a franchise agreement with Public Utility.  At Law Firm, Commissioner "does not work on [Public Utility] issues" and "none of the clients she represents would be affected by the vote."  Commissioner asked the Florida Commission on Ethics whether it would present a voting conflict under Fla.Stat. sec. 112.3143(3)(a) for Commissioner to vote on the franchise agreement.  The Commission answered that it would not present a voting conflict.

    The Commission concluded:  "Our past opinions have indicated that each attorney in a law firm is "retained" by each of the firm's clients, and is therefore required to abstain from voting on matters inuring to the special private gain or loss of any client of the firm.  These rulings were underpinned by case law stating that the retention of a law firm obligates every member thereof to fulfilling the contract.  See, CEO 03-7.  The courts have not applied that concept to non-lawyer employees of law firms; nor have we.  In CEO 94-41, we advised a paralegal who served as a member of a city council that unlike the attorneys in the firm, her 'principal' would be the law firm where she was employed rather than any individual client of the firm, and that she would not have a voting conflict of interest in voting on matters inuring to the gain or loss of a firm client, so long as the client was not represented in the matter by her firm.  Consistent with the opinion, we find here that the Commissioner's 'principals' would be the firm where she is employed and her individual clients.  As you have represented that the measure at issue will not inure to the benefit or detriment of any of those persons or entities, no prohibited voting conflict of interest is presented."  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]

    A Regional Counsel in one of the 5 new Offices of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel asked the Florida Commission on Ethics whether the state financial disclosure laws applied to Regional Counsel and to the Assistant Regional Counsel in each office.  The Commission concluded that the Regional Counsel in each office are required to file financial a disclosure statement pursuant to Fla.Stat. sec. 112.3145.  The Assistant Regional Counsel, however, are not required to file a financial disclosure.

    The Commission's opinion noted that the Regional Counsel are not "state officers" under Fla.Stat. sec. 112.3145(1)(c).  They are "specified state employees" pursuant to Fla.Stat. sec. 112.3145(1)(b)1., however, because they have authority to make state purchases above the $15,000 threshold amount.

    The Assistant Regional Counsel are not "state officers" nor "specified state employees" for purposes of the financial disclosure laws.  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.