Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout82-570 PrattHonorable Ralph D. Pratt, Member House of Representatives Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 328 Main. Capitol Building Harrisburg, PA 17120 RE: Law Partnership Dear Representative Pratt: Mailing Address. STATE ETHICS COMMISSION P.O. BOX 1 179 HARRISBURG, PA 17108 TELEPHONE: (717) 783 -1610 August 26, 1982 ADVICE OF COUNSEL 82-570 This responds to your letter of August 2, 1982, in which you requested advice from the State Ethics Commission. Issue: You are interested in determining what limitations exist regarding a proposed law partnership. Facts: You currently serve as a member of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Representing the 10th Legislative District. You are presently considering entering a partnership in the practice of law which practice would be conducted simultaneously with your retention of your post as a member of the Legislature. You are particularly interested in determining whether or not this association would impose any limitations on your professional status or limitations on the activities of your potential law partners. Discussion: Initially, we note that as an elected official you are considered a "public official" within the purview of the provisions of the Ethics Act. While we may interpret the provisions of the Ethics Act as they may be applicable to your conduct, we cannot render any binding advice on any other "pertinent laws" regarding this proposed venture as you request in your letter. Addressing the concerns presented under the Ethics Act however, it is clear that neither the Ethics Act itself nor any Opinion of the Commission imposes a prohibition against your association in the practice of law as you propose. In past decisions, the Commission has indicated that a legislator, for example, may serve simultaneously as a legislator and as a consultant without violating the Ethics Act. See Geist, 79 -011. See also Manderino, 80 -49 -C, 81 -027. A similar decision has been rendered in relation to an employee of a legislative committee seeking employment with another legislatively created commission. See Berson, 79 -039. State Ethics Commission • 308 Finance Building s Hrrisburg, Pennsyfvari a Honorable Ralph D. Pratt, Member August 26, 1982 Page 2 In addition, the Commission has determined that with reference to an analogous section of the Ethics Act, Section 3(e), 65 P.S. 403(e), that any disqualification which might be applicable to a particular public employee or public official would not "taint" any member of the former public employee's or public official's firm. Thus, any prohibitions or requirements which might be imposed on a particular public employee or public official would not give rise to application of similar disqualifications as to members of the firm with which that particular public official or public employee might become or be associated. See Morris, 80 -039. We do note that your question raises concerns relating to Section 3(a) and 3(b) of the Ethics Act, 65 P.S. 403(a) and (b) respectively. Specifically, there is a general question as to whether legislators may themselves serve as advocates before the state agencies. This matter has been the subject of extensive review by various states. However, the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission has not provided any precedent in this matter which I would be able to relate to you at this time. This general question, however, may be presented to the Commission for their potential review and disposition as necessary. Finally, I note that in relation to reporting any income from your proposed law partnership you should be alert to the requirements contained in the regulations of the Ethics Commission which appear at 51 Pa. Code 5.7(b). This regulation indicates that professionals, whether acting as individuals or members of a firm, are required to disclose as sources of income those individuals who have paid fees for services related to matters before the governmental body with which the public official is associated. In all other cases, only the name of the firm or business is to be listed. Thus, in a situation such as yours, if individual persons were to pay fees in excess of $500 to your partnership for services related to matters before the governmental body with which you are associated -- the House of Representatives -- those individual sources of income would be required to be reported on your annual Financial Interest Statement. Otherwise, only the name of the firm or partnership would be required to be listed. Conclusion: The Ethics Act does not prohibit simultaneous service as a member of the House of Representatives and a partner in a law firm. Any restrictions that might he imposed upon a public official, member of the House of Representatives, in such a situation are restricted to the individual public official and do not disqualify the entire firm or impose any limitation on the potential law partners of the public official. Honorable Ralph 0._Pratt, Member August 26, 1982 Page 3 c 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 will be scheduled and a formal Opinion from the Commission will be issued. Any such appeal must be made, in writing, to the Commission within 15 days of service of this Advice pursuant to 51 Pa. Code 2.12. SSC /rdp Sincerely, andra S. Christianson General Counsel