Advisory Opinion No. 2015-1 Approved: January 13, 2015 Re: James A. Briden, Esq. QUESTION PRESENTED: The Petitioner, a former member of the East Providence City Council, a municipal elected position, requests an advisory opinion regarding whether the Code of Ethics prohibits him and other members of his law firm from representing clients before the East Providence Probate Court and the East Providence Municipal Court within one-year from the date of his official severance from the City Council. RESPONSE: It is the opinion of the Rhode Island Ethics Commission that the Petitioner, a former member of the East Providence City Council, a municipal elected position, and other members of his law firm are not prohibited by the Code of Ethics from representing clients before the East Providence Probate Court and the East Providence Municipal Court within one year from the date of his official severance from the City Council, because such representation pertains to matters of public record in a court of law and, therefore, is not subject to the one-year probationary period. The Petitioner completed his two-year term on the East Providence City Council (“City Council”) on December 1, 2014. He represents that, in his private capacity, he is a partner in the law firm of Blais Cunningham & Crowe Chester, LLP. He seeks clarity as to whether he and the other members of his law firm may represent clients before the East Providence Probate Court (“Probate Court”) and the East Providence Municipal Court (“Municipal Court”), based upon the exception for a matter of public record in a court of law as set forth in Rhode Island General Laws § 36-14-5(e)(4). Section 5(e) of the Code of Ethics strictly prohibits public officials and employees from representing themselves, or another person as their attorney, before a state or municipal agency of which they are a member or by which they are employed. Section 36-14-5(e); Commission Regulation 36-14-5016(b)(1). These prohibitions also include matters before another agency for which the public official is the appointing authority. Regulation 5016(a)(3), (b)(3). Section 5(e)’s prohibitions continue while the official remains in office and for a period of one-year thereafter. However, section 5(e)(4) states that “this prohibition shall not pertain to a matter of public record in a court of law.” In prior advisory opinions, the Commission has recognized that the one-year probationary period set forth in section 5(e)(4) does not extend to individuals who wish to represent clients, within one-year from the date of their official severance from public service, when such representation pertains to matters of public record in a court of law. More specifically, the Commission has found that both probate courts and municipal courts are courts of public record. See A.O. 2009-36 (opining that the former Coventry Probate Court Judge could represent clients before the Coventry Probate Court prior to one-year from his termination from service as Probate Court Judge because the Coventry Probate Court is a court of public record); A.O. 2002-9 (opining that the former Woonsocket Probate Court Judge could represent clients before the Woonsocket Probate Court immediately upon leaving his position because the Probate Court is a court of public record); A.O. 2009-14 (opining that the East Providence Municipal Court is a court of public record and advising the former East Providence Assistant Solicitor that he could represent clients in the East Providence Municipal Court within one-year from the date of his severance from the City); A.O. 99-52 (opining that the former Cranston Municipal Court Judge could represent clients before the Cranston Municipal Court immediately upon leaving his position as Judge of that Court because the Municipal Court is a court of public record). Here, as a member of the City Council, the Petitioner had the authority to appoint the judges serving on both the Probate Court and Municipal Court, which would generally implicate the revolving door prohibition in section 5(e). However, we find that the instant matter falls squarely within the exception to the one-year probationary period for matters of public record in a court of law. Section 36-14-5(e)(4). Accordingly, it is the opinion of the Ethics Commission that the Petitioner and other members of his law firm are not prohibited by the Code of Ethics from representing clients before the East Providence Probate Court and East Providence Municipal Court within one-year from the date of his official severance from the City Council, because such representation pertains to matters of public record in a court of law and, therefore, is not subject to the one-year probationary period. This Advisory Opinion is strictly limited to the facts stated herein and relates only to the application of the Rhode Island Code of Ethics. Under the Code of Ethics, advisory opinions are based on the representations made by, or on behalf of, a public official or employee and are not adversarial or investigative proceedings. Finally, this Commission offers no opinion on the effect that any other statute, regulation, ordinance, constitutional provision, charter provision, or canon of professional ethics may have on this situation. Code Citations: § 36-14-5(e) Commission Regulation 36-14-5016 Related Advisory Opinions: A.O. 2009-36 A.O. 2009-14 A.O. 2002-9 A.O. 99-52 Keywords: Revolving Door Private Employment