The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About87-507A SamuelRalph David Samuel, Esquire Suite 920 1500 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 Re: Advice of Counsel No. 87 -507 Dear Mr. Samuel: JJC /rda STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PA 17120 TELEPHONE: (717) 783 -1610 February 17, 1987 SUPPLEMENTAL ADVICE OF COUNSEL Vey ru; .v. you ohn J. ino Act'•. General Counsel 87 -507A This responds to your letter of January 22, 1987, wherein you indicate that certain additional facts should be considered in relation to Advice of Counsel No. 87 -507, which was issued on January 16, 1987. Pursuant to that Advice of Counsel you had requested information as to whether your law firm could enter into a representation agreement with the Office of the City Solicitor in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. You had further advised that your spouse was an employee of the Philadelphia Water Department. You advise that your spouse was in charge of the Human Resources Division of that Department. As part of that advice, the State. Ethics Commission had assumed that the Water Department would have no input or duties in relation to your selection by the Office of City Solicitor. Your current letter indicates that the City Solicitor did in fact consult with the water commissioner concerning his selection of the attorneys to represent the city in this matter. You advise that the city solicitor indicated that the candidates were. discussed with the water commissioner although the final selection was left to the solicitor. You have requested additional advice as to whether this consultation between the water commissioner and the city solicitor would affect the previously issued advice. Upon a review of these facts, it is our conclusion that the prior advice would remain unchanged. Specifically, the contract between your law firm and the City of Philadelphia would not be one between a department which employs your spouse. Specifically, you would still be contracting with the office of City Solicitor and as such, the requirements of the prior advice would still be applicable. I do point out, however, that as noted in that prior advice, your wife must not participate in any matter relating to your employment by the city or any matter related to your representation of the city. This letter will be incorporated as part of the original advice and, as such, will also be available as a public document.