HomeMy WebLinkAbout79-043 AdlerSTATE ETHICS COMMISSION
'HARRISBURG, PA.
September 5, 1979
OPINION OF THE COMMISSION
Theodore A. Adler
3552 Old +E tt i sb rg toad
Camp Hill, PA 17011
RE: Application of Section 3(e) "the governmental body with
which he has been associated."
FACTS:
On June 8, 1979, you requested an opinion of the Commission
relating to whether you can represent a client before the
Department of ` General Services, a court of law, or a
quasi judicial body in an action against the Department Of
Gei'4e Services.
Will also inquired as to what types of settlement discussions
you could ent into on behalf of a client in such an action.
b sdogsiON:
S'eetion 3(e) of the Act prohibits you froiti representing a
client before the Department of General Services.
The Commission notes that the Department of General
Sservies is a unique agency in acting as vendee Mr such
a large number of agencies within the Commonwealth. Its sphere
of influence is considerably wider than the Department of
General Services itself.
Therefore, we must hold that it would be an appearance of
A conflict if you were td become in any way i hNYoived iii any
*fitter with which yogi had authority or discretionary po ler
during your tenure with the Department of General Services.
CONCLUSION:
You may not represent a client before the Department
of General Services. However; 1 of the At does bar
an appearance of a conflict, thus yogi may not represth t any
party in an action in which yoti, during your governmental
tenure, had any involvement
79 -043
Theodore A. Adler Page Two
September 5 , 1979
Pursuant to Sections 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 requester
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 by law and will be made
available as such.
Oft
Paul J. Smith
Chai n
UPDATE: A Commonwealth Court ruling (434 Aid 1327) on similiar factual circumstances should be reviewed. Former
Commonwealth employees or officials who are attorneys may practice law before the governmental body with
which he /she has been associated regardless of the Section 3(e) (one year) prohibition. The court ruling did not
specificially address this particular opinion, but the factual circumstances may be applied to it. This Common-
wealth Court opinion was affirmed, without further opinion by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.