HomeMy WebLinkAbout80-532 UmbenhauerTO:
RE:
FACTS:
DISCUSSION:
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
308 FINANCE BUILDING
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120
February 22, 1980
ADVICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL
Richard A. Umbenhauer
Nikolaus, Hohenadel & Greiner
327 Locust Street
Columbia, PA 17512
Advice # 80 -532
Attorney Client Disclosure Requirement
Spouse of a Borough Council Member Being Employed by
the Borough
On February 1, 1980 Richard A. Umbenhauer wrote this
Commission asking whether a law firm which represents an
insurance company must reveal the name of the carrier or
the insured where the insured writes home owners policies
within the borough for which the law firm serves as a solicitor.
Clarification is also requested where a spouse of a
borough council member is a full -time employee of the borough.
The client disclosure requirement for solicitors relates
only to those situations where the solicitor receives adjusted
gross income from a client for matters dealing with the solicitor's
governmental body. Thus, under the above facts neither the
carrier nor the insured would be disclosed on the Financial
Interests Statement. As a practical matter the only time disclosure
would be required of a solicitor where the work was performed
consistent with the Code of Professional Responsibility is
where the individual accepts a new solicitorship, and has clients,
or is receiving partnership distribution fees from clients who
are dealing with or have litigation with that governmental body.
Where a spouse of a new borough council member has been
an employee prior to the public official assuming office, and the
position does not normally call for formal written contracts or
contract renewals, there is no conflict of interest in the borough
council member holding office. The borough council member should
however abstain from taking part in any decisions of the borough
council which - affect his or her spouse.
Richard A. Umbenhauer
February 22, 1980
Page 2
CONCLUSION:
DRM /rdp -2
The phrase, "doing business within the jurisdiction of the
governmental body" relates to the jurisdictional power of that
body and not geographical jurisdiction only. There is no
conflict of interest of a spouse of a long term borough employee
holding the position of borough councilmen, however, that public
official shall abstain from participating in any matter effecting
his or her spouse.
Pursuant to Section 7(9)(ii), this advice is a
complete defense in any enforcement proceeding initiated
by the Commission, and evidence of good faith conduct in
any other civil or criminal proceeding, providing the
requestor has disclsoed truthfully all the material facts
and committed the acts complained of in reliance on the
advice given.
A personal appearance before the Commission and a
formal opinion will be issued upon your request if you
feel this reply does not suffice.
This letter is a public record and will be made
available as such.
DAVID RITTENHOUSE MORRISON
Chief Counsel