| Date: | 04/17/1984 |
|---|---|
| Organization: | State Ethics Commission |
A district court employee is advised that §§ 23(b)(2) and (c) of the conflict of interest law apply to matters where he would be called upon to participate in matters in which his attorney-spouse appears on behalf of clients.
You were recently appointed to a position in the XYZ Division of the District Court Department (Division). The Division has sittings in two towns, ABC and DEF, and you alternate your court location assignments with another Division employee. Your responsibilities include [Description of duties omitted]. Your spouse is an attorney and was recently hired as an associate with a law firm in DEF which represents clients in civil and criminal matters before both Division locations.
What limitations does G.L. c. 268A place on your activities as an employee of the Division?
You will be subject to the limitations set forth below.
In your capacity as an employee of the Division, you are an employee of a state agency, EC-COI-83-128, and are therefore a state employee for the purposes of G.L. c. 268A. As a state employee you are subject to the standards of conduct contained in G.L. c. 268A, § 23, which, in relevant part, prohibit you from, by your conduct, giving reasonable basis for the impression that any person can properly influence or unduly enjoy your favor in the performance of your official court duties, or that you are unduly affected by the kinship, rank, position, or influence of any party or person. These standards are designed to avoid situations where the integrity and credibility of an employee's work may be called into question. Compliance with these standards requires safeguards to ensure that your decisions as a state employee are not clouded by personal or private loyalties. EC-COI-83-128. Application of these standards must take into account that certain court personnel are held to a high standard, in order to "ensure the integrity of the judicial system, which must not only be beyond suspicion but must appear to be so." [Citation omitted].
Bearing these principles in mind, the Commission advises you that you should refrain from participating as a division employee in any case in which your spouse has filed an appearance. When such a case comes before you, you should have another Division employee handle the matter.[1] Given your spousal relationship, by participating in cases in which your spouse had filed an appearance, you would be giving reasonable basis for the impression that you will unduly favor him/her in the exercise of your discretion as a Division employee.
This prohibition would not apply to those cases in which other associates or members of your spouse's law firm have filed an appearance and where you would be called upon to perform a ministerial act [Examples, omitted]. On the other hand, if you are called upon to perform a discretionary act in such cases, the safest course would be for you to refrain from any participation. Otherwise, each action you take as a Division employee with respect to these cases would have to be examined after the fact to determine whether your conduct gave reasonable basis for the impression of undue favoritism to the law firm.
You should also be aware that Section 23 ¶ 3 prohibits you from improperly disclosing materials or data within the exemptions to the definition of public records as defined by section seven of chapter 4, and which were acquired by you in the course of your official duties or using such information to further your personal interests. These provisions, which are largely self-explanatory, come into play when state employees misuse confidential information to which they have access as state employees. In view of your access to confidential information as a Division employee, you should keep this prohibition in mind whenever you discuss work-related matters with your spouse.
EC-COI-84-16.
End of Decision
