Disclosure by Lawyer-Legislators

<a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/do-ethics-commissions-have-jurisdicti…; target="”_blank”">Two days ago, I wrote</a> about a Louisiana lawyer-legislator who is arguing
that disclosure rules should not apply to lawyers, because the practice
of law is regulated by the state supreme court. The story behind an
indictment in New Jersey this week makes a strong argument for applying
disclosure rules to lawyers, as they are in California and North
Carolina, only better.<br>
<br>

According to <a href="http://www.philly.com/inquirer/local/nj/20100929_Bryant_indictment_high…; target="”_blank”">an
article in the Philadelphia <i>Inquirer</i></a>, a state senator listed his
law firm as a source of earned income, but did not have to reveal that
his firm received $192,000 in retainer fees from a law firm that,
according to a federal indictment, was effectively laundering money
from its clients in return for the senator's support of certain development projects.<br>
<br>
The interest of legal clients in keeping their status secret must be
weighed against the public interest in knowing the financial interests
of its representatives and their business associates. There are at
least three responsible ways of dealing with this situation.<br>
<br>
One is to ask all clients of law firms for which state and local
legislators work to waive their right to keep their status secret. But
can this be required? Any requirement would likely lead to a big
lawsuit.<br>
<br>
Another is to have the client lists given confidentially to an ethics
commission or officer, which would be required to check each client
against each matter that came before the legislative body. But let's
face it:  this is an almost impossible task. The ethics officer or
commission staff simply has too little information, and there's no one
to help.<br>
<br>
A third is to put the burden on the lawyer-legislators. Paula Franzese,
a Seton Hall Law School professor and government ethics expert, recommends that
"public officials disclose the names of clients who may be benefiting
from any legislation." I agree with Franzese that this is the best
solution. It provides the most transparency while preserving the privacy of
clients who are not directly affected by government decisions. It also
provides only useful information, instead of enormous numbers of names
through which regulators, citizen groups, and the news media must slog.<br>
<br>
This solution to the problem is superior to what is done in California
and North Carolina, where lawyer-legislators are only required to
disclose the names of clients who pay them a certain amount. It isn't
the amount that's important; what matters are the possible benefits that create the
conflicts of interest.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---