Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout80-719 PopeH. Ray Pope Pope & Pope, Attorneys At Law 10 Grant Street Clarion, PA 16214 STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 October 14, 1980 ADVICE OF COUNSEL 80 -719 RE: Applicability of the Ethics Act to a Former Judge Dear Mr. Pope: This responds to your inquiry of September 18, 1980. Issue: You inquire as to the status of and the application of Section 3(e) of the Ethics Act to a former judge. Specifi- cally, you inquire as to whether a former judge is prohibited from appearing before the Court with which he was associated for a one year period after leaving that Court. Facts: You indicate that you served an interim three months term as a Judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Clarion County. You indicated that your term of office expired on January 7, 1980. Discussion: The issue of the applicability of the provisions of Section 3(e) of the Ethics Act to former judges has been raised in litigation. The case of Wajert v. State Ethics Commission, No. 80 -2 -250 was recently decided by the Pennsyl- vania Supreme Court. A copy of the Opinion of the Supreme Court in this matter is attached for your reference. As you can see the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has determined that Section 3(e) of the Ethics Act is unconstitutional insofar as it applies to former judges. No reconsideration has been requested in this matter by the Commission and, accordingly, the decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on this matter is final. Conclusion: Given the ruling of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in this matter the State Ethics Commission cannot apply Section 3(e) of the Ethics Act to prohibit your repre- sentation of any person within a one year period before the Court of Common Pleas with which you have been associated. Consequently, you are not barred from such representation before that Court. H. Ray Pope October 14, 1980 Page 2 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 disclosed truthfully all the material facts and committed the acts complained of in reliance on the Advice given. This letter is a public record and will be made available as such. Finally, if you disagree with this Advice or if you have any reason to challenge same, you may request that the full Commission review this Advice. A personal appearance before the Commission may be scheduled and a formal Opinion from the Commission will be issued. You should make such a request or indicate your disapproval of this Advice within the next 30 days. SSC /rdp Enclosures Sincerely, 4 Sandra S. Christianson General Counsel