Under state ethics laws, former assistant state attorney may represent clients against state attorney's office.  [Added 6/8/10]

    An Assistant State Attorney ("the inquirer") will be retiring soon.  The inquirer's job duties include representing the state in child dependency cases.  Upon retirement, the inquirer would like to take such cases against the state attorney's office as a private attorney.  The inquirer asked the Florida Commission on Ethics whether Fla.Stat. section 112.313(9) would prohibit this proposed conduct.  The Commission concluded that the proposed conduct would be permitted.

    Under section 112.313(9)(a)4, the inquirer would be precluded from representing anyone for compensation against the agency that formerly employed the inquirer for 2 years after leaving the state attorney's employ.  That provision, however, only applies if the inquirer is considered an "employee" of the state attorney's office as that term is defined in the statute.  The Commission has "not previously had occasion to consider whether Assistant State Attorneys are 'employees' as defined in Section 112.313(9)(a)2.a.

    After reviewing the statute, the Commission noted that "the salaries and benefits of Assistant State Attorneys are not 'set by the department [of Management Services]'" and, therefore, an assistant state attorney does not meet the definition of "employee" under section 112.313(9)(a)2.a.(I).  The Commission concluded:  "Accordingly, we find that you will not, upon your retirement from the State Attorney's Office, be prohibited by Section 112.313(9), Florida Statutes, from representing parents in dependency cases, where the State Attorney's Office represents the State in such cases.  Please note that this opinion does not address any possible conflicts of interest that may exist under the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, since we do not administer the standards of conduct applicable to Florida Bar members.  For advice about the appropriate standards of conduct under these rules, please contact the Florida Bar."  Florida Commission on Ethics Opinion CEO 10-14.

Commission on Ethics discusses how 2 year post-public-employment representation restriction applies to former SES senior attorney of Agency for Workforce Innovation.  [Added 6/8/10]

    A former employee ("the inquirer") of the Agency for Workforce Innovation ("AWI") asked the Florida Commission on Ethics for advice regarding application of the 2-year post-public employment representation restriction of Fla.Stat. section 112.313(9)(a)4.  The inquirer had worked for the AWI for two and a half months, serving in the Selected Exempt Service ("SES") as a Senior Attorney.  After leaving the AWI, the inquirer wishes to represent clients before the Unemployment Appeals Commission ("UAC") and its "lower tribunal."

    First, the Commission reviewed the statute and concluded that the inquirer was in a covered position (SES) while at AWI and thus was subject to the 2-year restriction on representing clients before the inquirer's former agency.

    Next, the Commission concluded that the UAC is a different "agency" from the inquirer's employer, AWI, and that the inquirer was "not prohibited from representing clients before UAC, per se.  As to your representation of clients before the UAC's 'lower tribunal,' what you also refer to as the 'unemployment compensation appeals division [of AWI],' we find that you are restricted for the two-year period.  Unlike regarding UAC, we have discovered no statute separating the lower tribunal from AWI.  Indeed, information on AWI's website (www.floridajobs.org) shows the lower tribunal to be a part of AWI . . ."  The Commission noted the practical difficult of attempting to represent clients "without running afoul of the two-year restriction if [the] representation involves contact with AWI personnel who provide support or assistance to UAC."

    In summary, the Commission stated:  "Accordingly, we find that your 'agency' for purposes of the restriction is the whole of AWI, and is not UAC, but that any conduct of yours within the meaning of 'representation,' vis-à-vis AWI or its personnel (even its personnel supporting UAC), is prohibited by the restriction."  Florida Commission on Ethics CEO 10-13.

Former government official's conviction of conspiracy to commit mail fraud supports forfeiture of retirement benefits under public ethics laws.  [Added 4/20/10]

    Former Sheriff pleaded guilty in federal court to one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud and 3 counts of filing a false tax return.  The underlying crimes "were committed over the course of several years in a series of unlawful transactions."  When Former Sheriff applied for state retirement benefits, the Department of Management Services denied them on the basis that Former Sheriff had forfeited them as a result of his federal convictions.  In support of its decision the Department cited to Fla. Constit. art. II, sec. 8(d) and Fla.Stat. sec. 112.3173.  Former Sheriff appealed.

    The First DCA affirmed.  The constitution provision states in pertinent part:  "Any public officer or employee who is convicted of a felony involving a breach of public trust shall be subject to forfeiture of rights and privileges under a public retirement system or pension plan in such manner as may be provided by law."  This constitutional provision is implemented by provisions of Chapter 112, Florida Statutes.  Under F.S. 112.3173(3), a public officer or employee convicted of a "specified offense" forfeits all rights and benefits that he or she might have had in the state retirement system.  To serve as the basis for the forfeiture, Former Sheriff's felony mail fraud conviction must meet "the general definition of a specified offense in subsection 112.3173(2)(e)6, which provides that "specified offense" means "The committing of any felony by a public officer or employee who, willfully and with intent to defraud the public or the public agency for which the public officer or employee acts or in which he or she is employed of the right to receive the faithful performance of his or her duty as a public officer or employee, realizes or obtains, or attempts to realize or obtain, a profit, gain, or advantage for himself or herself or for some other person through the use or attempted use of the power, rights, privileges, duties, or position of his or her public office or employment position."

    Former Sheriff contended that his conviction was not a "specified offense" because the elements of it "do not match the elements of any of the crimes described in the statute."  On the other hand, the Department argued that "the crime qualifies as a specified offense by the manner in which it was committed."  The court viewed the operative question as "whether the term 'specified offense' is defined by the conduct of the former public official, or whether it is defined more narrowly by the elements of the crime for which the official was convicted."

    Relying on the text of the statute, the First DCA sided with the Department.  "We need not look beyond the text of the statute to find the answer to the question.  Section 112.3173(2)(e)6., Florida Statutes defines a specified offense as the commission of 'any felony by a public officer or employee who, willfully and with intent to defraud the public . . . of the right to receive the faithful performance of his or her duty . . . realizes or obtains, or attempts to realize or obtain, a profit, gain, or advantage for himself or herself . . . through the use or attempted use of the power, rights, privileges, duties, or position of his or her public office.'  (Emphasis added [by court].)  By this language, any felony could qualify as a specified offense, so long as the remaining conditions in the statute have been met.  All of the remaining conditions refer to the conduct of the official, not the definition of the crime."  Jenne v. Fla. Dept. of Management Services, __ So.3d ___, 35 Fla.L.Weekly D859 (Fla. 1st DCA, No. 1D09-2959, 4/20/2010), 2010 WL 1542646.

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]  --  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]  --  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]  --  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]  --  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]  --  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.