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)