Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout79-075 LucchinoTO: FACTS: DISCUSSION: STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 OPINION December 19, 1979 Frank J. Lucchino Suite 1200, Lawyers Building 428 Forbes Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15219 RE: Duties of a Controller On November 9, 1979 Frank J. Lucchino,Esquire, Controller Elect of Allegheny County, asked this Commission for advice regarding two specific areas: "The first area, is the extent of my obligations under Act 170 when I represent clients who are in businesses, such as the office supply business, and who might from time to time have done business and continue to do business with Allegheny County without knowledge to me. These clients may have had a long term lease for copy equipment or selling copy supplies which I have never had to deal with as a lawyer so I will not be aware of their dealings. A second area is what my disclosure obligations are under Act 170 with regard to clients who deal with independent county authorities such as the Allegheny County Housing Authority, and other similar authorities." The first issue is whether it is a conflict of interest to represent clients who do business with Allegheny County without knowledge to the Controller who is representing them in private practice. S3 (d) permits the Commission to address other areas of possible conflict. §1 requires holders of public office to "present neither a conflict or the appearance of a conflict with the public trust." 79-075 OPINION PAGE 2 This section is all the more important for the Controller who functions as a watchdog of the public purse. As to the knowledge issue, a Controller can always ask his client if he deals with the county. A County Controller may represent a client on non- county matters, but if the client is dealing with the county by himself or through other counsel, such representation constitutes "an appearance of a conflict with the public trust." §l. As to previous clients who have been represented before the county, the Controller may wish to delegate his audit function to an independent accounting firm or employee - especially where representation of these clients has been recent, and has involved large sums of money. Representation of a present client in negotiations with the county is a conflict prohibited by the State Ethics Act. We also note that public service as a Controller may also conflict with the duty to represent a client zealously (Canon 7) as well as be a conflict of interest (Canon 5). The second issue is whether the Controller must disclose the names of those clients who deal with authorities of the county. The County Commissioners appoint authority members, and, even though the Controller has no responsibility with respect to their appointment, the authorities are part of the governmental body of which the Controller is a part. Moreover, although authorities have their own auditing departments, it is possible that a County Controller could become involved in auditing a contract with an authority. Therefore, Mr. Lucchino must disclose the names and addresses of any clients . who pay him a fee of $500.00 or more for legal advice related to an authority. CONCLUSION: A Controller who is an attorney shall appoint an independent auditing firm or individual where the audit involves a client or recent client of the Controller. It is "an appearance of a conflict with the public trust" for a Controller to represent a client on non - county matters, where that client is dealing with the County OPINION PAGE 3 by himself or through other counsel. It is a violation of the State Ethics Act for the Controller to represent any client in any matter related to the County. A Controller may represent clients in authority matters, and such clients must be disclosed if the fee is $500.00 or more. Mr. Lucchino does not have a responsibility to determine if a client has dealt with the County by himself or through another law firm. Regulations clarifying the duty of disclosure for attorneys in public office or in a position of "public employee" will be issued shortly. Pursuant to Section 7(9)(i), this opinion 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. UL J. SNIT Chairman( (SEAL)