Advisory Opinion No. 2013-24 Re: David V. Igliozzi, Esq. QUESTION PRESENTED The Petitioner, an Assistant City Solicitor for the City of Providence serving as legal counsel to the Providence School Board, a municipal employee, who in his private capacity is a partner in the law firm of Igliozzi & Reis, LLP, requests an advisory opinion regarding whether he and other members of his law firm may represent private clients before the Providence City Council, Zoning Board, Planning Board, Probate Court, Municipal Court, Board of Tax Appeal, or any other City board, court, commission or entity. RESPONSE It is the opinion of the Rhode Island Ethics Commission that the Petitioner, an Assistant City Solicitor for the City of Providence serving as legal counsel to the Providence School Board, a municipal employee, is prohibited, along with the other members of his law firm, by the Code of Ethics from representing private clients before the Providence School Board and the Providence School Department. However, based upon the facts represented by the Petitioner, the Code of Ethics does not prohibit the Petitioner or other members of his law firm from representing private clients before other Providence boards, courts, commissions or entities before which he does not represent the City as an Assistant City Solicitor, and over which he exercises no authority or control, such as the City Council, Zoning Board, Planning Board, Probate Court, Municipal Court, and Board of Tax Appeal. The Petitioner is a part-time Assistant City Solicitor for the City of Providence (“City”). He represents that his duties are limited to acting as legal counsel for the Providence School Board (“School Board”) and assisting the Providence School Department (“School Department”) with school related legal issues, including: unemployment compensation determinations before the Rhode Island Department of Labor and Training; residency determinations before the Rhode Island Department of Education; and discrimination complaints before the Rhode Island Commission for Human Rights. He states that his duties do not include acting on behalf of any other City board or commission. In his private capacity, the Petitioner informs that he is a partner in the law firm of Igliozzi & Reis, LLP. He represents that a client has recently asked Igliozzi & Reis to represent them in a tax appeal to be filed with the City’s Board of Tax Appeal. Given that his duties as Assistant City Solicitor are limited to working with the School Board and the School Department, the Petitioner asks if he or other members of his law firm may represent clients before the Board of Tax Appeal, or any other City board, court, commission or entity. The Code of Ethics prohibits a public official from representing himself or any other person before any state or municipal agency of which he is a member or by which he is employed. R.I. Gen. Laws § 36-14-5(e)(1). A public official represents another person before a state or municipal agency if he “is authorized by that other person to act, and does in fact act, as the other person’s attorney at law.” Commission Regulation 36-14-5016(b)(1). Additionally, the Code prohibits a public official from using his public office or confidential information received through his public office to obtain financial gain for himself, his family, his business associate, or any person by which he is employed or whom he represents. Section 36-14-5(d). Finally, the Code of Ethics provides that a public official shall not accept other employment that would impair his independence of judgment as to his official duties or require or induce him to disclose confidential information acquired by him in the course of his official duties. Section 36-14-5(b). The Commission considered an analogous fact pattern in Advisory Opinion 2008-66, in which a newly appointed Assistant City Solicitor in Newport, whose official duties consisted of representing the City in Newport Municipal Court, asked if he and other attorneys at his law firm could represent clients before the Newport City Council, Zoning Board, Planning Board, Probate Court, Board of Tax Appeal, or any other Newport board, court or entity. The Commission opined that neither the petitioner nor any other members of his law firm could represent clients before the Newport Municipal Court, given the Petitioner’s substantial public duties there on behalf of Newport. However, based upon that petitioner’s representations that he had no duties to any Newport agency outside of the Municipal Court, he and other members of his firm were not prohibited from representing clients before the other various Newport boards and agencies before which he did not represent the City as Assistant City Solicitor and over which he did not exercise any authority or control. See also A.O. 2011-13 (opining that the Coventry Town Solicitor could represent clients in his private capacity before the Coventry School Department in Special Education Hearings, given that the School Department did not utilize the Town Solicitor’s office for legal assistance and had retained its own independent legal counsel); A.O. 2008-27 (opining that the North Providence Municipal Court Prosecutor could represent clients in his private capacity before the North Providence Town Council and other Town boards, commissions and departments, other than the Municipal Court and the Zoning Board). In the present matter, similar to Advisory Opinion 2008-66, it is clear that the Code of Ethics prohibits the Petitioner and other members of his law firm from representing private clients before the School Board and the School Department. However, based upon the above representations, the Petitioner’s private legal work before other City boards is not in substantial conflict with his duties as Assistant City Solicitor. Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that the Petitioner’s private legal work before other City boards, such as the Board of Tax Appeal, would impair his independence of judgment in that he represents that his official duties are limited to the School Board and School Department matters. Therefore, 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 private clients before other Providence boards, courts, commissions or entities before which he does not represent the City as an Assistant City Solicitor, and over which he exercises no authority or control, such as the City Council, Zoning Board, Planning Board, Probate Court, Municipal Court, and Board of Tax Appeal. Code Citations: § 36-14-5(b) § 36-14-5(d) § 36-14-5(e) Commission Regulation 36-14-5016 Related Advisory Opinions: A.O. 2011-13 A.O. 2008-66 A.O. 2008-27 Keywords: Private Employment Revolving Door