You are here
An Ethics Complaint Against a Lawyer on a Local EC
Wednesday, November 20th, 2013
Robert Wechsler
Many people think that lawyers make
the best ethics commission members. In fact, many ethics codes
require that at least some members of an ethics commission be
lawyers.
However, lawyers are the individuals most likely to have relationships and obligations that conflict with the obligations they have as EC members. For example, they often have relationships with elected officials, who are often lawyers themselves, as well as with clients who seek special benefits from the local government. And they often represent clients before their local government's agencies and bodies.
This last kind of conflict situation led to a complaint filed against a Woodbridge, CT EC member, according to an article in Monday's New Haven Register. The complaint alleged that a lawyer-EC member (1) represented the town's fire commission in a legal dispute with the town's inland wetlands agency, and (2) represented a client before the town's planning and zoning commission.
The town's ethics code prohibits town officials from representing anyone before a town agency or body. This means that the representation before the P&Z commission was an ethics violation. Such representation is especially a problem for EC members, because they have an obligation to their clients not to make government officials angry with them, and if they are seen to be easy on an official accused of an ethics violation, it would be reasonable for the public to think that the EC member was acting in the interest of future clients, and in the lawyer's self-interest, as well.
Representing a Town Body Pro Bono
Representing a town body raises a different problem. Normally, the problem with this is one official giving preferential treatment to another official and, apparently, excluding those without connections from getting a no-bid contract with the town body. With respect to a lawyer-EC member, there is also the problem of seeking and doing business with government officials, which will mean that he will not be seen as neutral with respect to officials he has represented or may hope to represent in the future, or with respect to their colleagues.
But in this case, the EC member took on the job for nothing, and the EC member feels that this makes the representation okay. However, should an EC member be doing favors for, and thereby developing reciprocal relationships with, officials who may come before the EC either to seek advice or as complainants, respondents, or witnesses in ethics proceedings? Due to an EC's quasi-judicial nature, an EC member should not establish a relationship with anyone under the EC's jurisdiction.
This would not be a formal ethics violation, but EC members need to understand that they should steer clear of any involvement with those under their jurisdiction.
Handling the Complaint
One reason why it is so important for EC members to tread carefully with respect to ethics rules and relationships with officials and those seeking benefits from the government, is that few ethics programs are prepared to deal responsibly with ethics complaints against EC members.
In Woodbridge, the town attorney is handling the complaint. The town attorney, who is under contract, is very active in towns and cities throughout the area. I've even had a run-in with him in my work as administrator of New Haven's public campaign financing program. There is a good chance that a contract town attorney has a relationship with a lawyer-EC member. In many cases, he has recommended the lawyer to the appointing authority. In short, the town attorney might be conflicted. Or as a lawyer, he may be seen to favor his fellow lawyer.
In Woodbridge, the EC makes determinations about its own members' possible ethics violations. This is a bad position to put these people in. And if they find no violation, it will look like they are favoring their colleague and creating precedents that might help them in the future. That won't gain the public's trust.
It is better that the town attorney and EC turn the matter over to another ethics program, either to the state's (which has more expertise) or to another town's as part of a reciprocal arrangement.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
However, lawyers are the individuals most likely to have relationships and obligations that conflict with the obligations they have as EC members. For example, they often have relationships with elected officials, who are often lawyers themselves, as well as with clients who seek special benefits from the local government. And they often represent clients before their local government's agencies and bodies.
This last kind of conflict situation led to a complaint filed against a Woodbridge, CT EC member, according to an article in Monday's New Haven Register. The complaint alleged that a lawyer-EC member (1) represented the town's fire commission in a legal dispute with the town's inland wetlands agency, and (2) represented a client before the town's planning and zoning commission.
The town's ethics code prohibits town officials from representing anyone before a town agency or body. This means that the representation before the P&Z commission was an ethics violation. Such representation is especially a problem for EC members, because they have an obligation to their clients not to make government officials angry with them, and if they are seen to be easy on an official accused of an ethics violation, it would be reasonable for the public to think that the EC member was acting in the interest of future clients, and in the lawyer's self-interest, as well.
Representing a Town Body Pro Bono
Representing a town body raises a different problem. Normally, the problem with this is one official giving preferential treatment to another official and, apparently, excluding those without connections from getting a no-bid contract with the town body. With respect to a lawyer-EC member, there is also the problem of seeking and doing business with government officials, which will mean that he will not be seen as neutral with respect to officials he has represented or may hope to represent in the future, or with respect to their colleagues.
But in this case, the EC member took on the job for nothing, and the EC member feels that this makes the representation okay. However, should an EC member be doing favors for, and thereby developing reciprocal relationships with, officials who may come before the EC either to seek advice or as complainants, respondents, or witnesses in ethics proceedings? Due to an EC's quasi-judicial nature, an EC member should not establish a relationship with anyone under the EC's jurisdiction.
This would not be a formal ethics violation, but EC members need to understand that they should steer clear of any involvement with those under their jurisdiction.
Handling the Complaint
One reason why it is so important for EC members to tread carefully with respect to ethics rules and relationships with officials and those seeking benefits from the government, is that few ethics programs are prepared to deal responsibly with ethics complaints against EC members.
In Woodbridge, the town attorney is handling the complaint. The town attorney, who is under contract, is very active in towns and cities throughout the area. I've even had a run-in with him in my work as administrator of New Haven's public campaign financing program. There is a good chance that a contract town attorney has a relationship with a lawyer-EC member. In many cases, he has recommended the lawyer to the appointing authority. In short, the town attorney might be conflicted. Or as a lawyer, he may be seen to favor his fellow lawyer.
In Woodbridge, the EC makes determinations about its own members' possible ethics violations. This is a bad position to put these people in. And if they find no violation, it will look like they are favoring their colleague and creating precedents that might help them in the future. That won't gain the public's trust.
It is better that the town attorney and EC turn the matter over to another ethics program, either to the state's (which has more expertise) or to another town's as part of a reciprocal arrangement.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
