Title
Consider options for an ordinance related to attorney and non-attorney communications with members of the Board of Supervisors and other decision-makers acting in an adjudicative capacity.
Report
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Board of Supervisors consider options for an ordinance of the County related to attorney and non-attorney communications with members of the Board of Supervisors and other decision-makers acting in an adjudicative capacity and provide direction to County Counsel.
SUMMARY/BACKGROUND:
The U.S. and California Constitutions provide everyone the right to petition their government through their elected and appointed representatives. As a general principle, elected officials' obligation to constituents is to be involved in matters of public importance. These principles and rights do not require elected officials to meet with everyone nor to conduct independent investigations of important public matters, but they do require adherence to principles of due process and fair hearings.
Historically, lawyers have been prohibited from Ex Parte contact with judges involving contested matters, such as lawsuits. Ex Parte contact means contact with a decision-maker in a contested matter for the benefit of one side/party where the other side/party is excluded. New Rule 3.5 of the California Rules of Professional Conduct for lawyers expanded the Ex Parte contact prohibition to include contact with members of administrative bodies hearing matters in an adjudicative capacity, also referred to as "quasi-judicial." Land use and other entitlement hearings are adjudicative proceedings. Some employment matters may also be considered adjudicative. Such entitlement matters come before the Board of Supervisors, the Planning Commission and the Zoning Administrator, and may include other bodies.
New California Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 4.2 prohibits lawyers from contacting clients of another lawyer, with exceptions. Recognizing ...
Click here for full text