Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Post Employment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission: former state attorney Dave Aronberg may represent criminal defendants prosecuted by his old office, with caution
Summary
Staff told the Ethics Commission that Florida post-employment restrictions generally do not bar a former state attorney from representing criminal defendants prosecuted by his former office; the panel adopted an advisory opinion with a cautionary footnote about using confidential information (section 112.313(8)).
Get email alerts on the Post Employment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Commission on Ethics adopted an advisory opinion concluding that, based on the statutes and staff research, a former state attorney (Dave Aronberg) is not categorically prohibited from representing criminal defendants in matters prosecuted by his former office, but must take care not to use confidential information obtained while in office.
Mr. Schaefer presented the draft opinion and walked commissioners through the constitutional provision and several parts of section 112.313(9)(a). He said the constitutional prohibition on lobbying for compensation applies to certain statewide and local officers but contains an exception for court representation; statutory post-employment prohibitions likewise apply only to specific categories of officers and to positions that fall into certain HR classifications (SMS/SCS), which a state attorney is not. Staff said it consulted the Department of Management Services and the Justice Administrative Commission and concluded state attorneys are not SMS/SCS-classified employees.
Staff noted, however, that section 112.313(8) prohibits former officers from using confidential information learned in public service for private advantage and recommended adding a cautionary sentence to the draft opinion emphasizing that caution. Dave Aronberg, the requestor, said he would avoid taking cases he had handled while in office and noted he would not use confidential investigative information. Commissioners asked several clarifying questions, then moved to adopt the advisory opinion with the added cautionary footnote; the motion passed by roll-call vote.

