CEO 77-72 -- May 19, 1977
QUARTERLY CLIENT DISCLOSURE
DISCLOSURE OF TWO OR MORE APPEARANCES BEFORE SAME AGENCY; EFFECT OF SIMILAR COUNTY ORDINANCES
To: (Name withheld at the person's request.)
SUMMARY:
Section 112.3145(4), F. S. (1976 Supp.), requires the quarterly disclosure of clients represented before agencies at the same level of government as the reporting person's agency. The latest copy of CE Form 2, Quarterly Client Disclosure, requires only the disclosure of the name of a particular client and the name of the agency before which that client was represented. Therefore, if one represents a client on several occasions before the same agency during a particular calendar quarter, only one disclosure need be made of the representation. A second disclosure is required, however, if that same client is represented before a different agency within the same quarter. Also, a second form must be completed and filed for the next quarter in which a reportable representation is made, even if such representation is a continuation of a matter from the preceding quarter.
A county ordinance which requires the disclosure of representation of clients does not supersede the requirements of quarterly client disclosure contained in Ch. 112, F. S. The Florida Supreme Court has ruled that "[m]unicipal ordinances are inferior in stature and subordinate to the laws of the state." Rinzler v. Carson, 262 So.2d 661, 668 (Fla. 1972). Accordingly, we take the view that client disclosure required by municipal ordinance is additional and cumulative to the disclosure requirements of the Florida Statutes, even if the ordinance were to provide that it is to supersede all other disclosure requirements.
QUESTIONS:
1. In completing Quarterly Client Disclosure, is it necessary to report each appearance in a particular matter or may I wait until the matter is completed and make one total disclosure?
2. Would a county ordinance requiring disclosure of representations of clients supersede the requirements of Quarterly Client Disclosure contained in Ch. 112, F.S.?
As to question 1, in your letter of inquiry you have stated that you are Chairman of the Coral Gables Trial Board and that therefore you are a "local officer" who is required to make Quarterly Client Disclosure pursuant to s. 112.3145(4), F. S. (1976 Supp.). You also have stated that on occasion you may represent a client in a matter which requires two or more representations before various municipal boards before the matter can be concluded. As an example, you state that if a particular client needs a building permit and a change of zoning, you are required to appear before the board of architects, before the planning board twice, and then before the city commission.
The latest version of CE Form 2, Quarterly Client Disclosure, a copy of which is enclosed, and additional copies of which may be obtained from the clerk of the circuit court, requires only the disclosure of the name of a particular client and the name of the agency before which that client was represented. Therefore, if you represent a client on several occasions before the same agency during a particular quarter, only one disclosure need be made. A second disclosure is required, however, if that same client is represented before a different agency within the same quarter. A second form would have to be completed and filed with the clerk of the circuit court for the next quarter in which a reportable representation was made, even if the representation was a continuation of a matter from the preceding quarter. Incidentally, s. 112.3145(4) specifically exempts the reporting of representations of a client before "any court," and therefore you need not report representations in a municipal court.
Question 2 is answered in the negative.
In your letter of inquiry you have stated that you understand that Dade County is preparing a disclosure ordinance which is similar to the disclosure requirement contained in s. 112.3145(4), F. S. (1976 Supp.).
Section 112.326, F. S. 1975, provides:
Additional requirements by political subdivisions not prohibited. -- Nothing in this act shall prohibit the governing body of any political subdivision from imposing upon its own local officers additional or more stringent disclosure requirements than those specified in this part.
Moreover, the Florida Supreme Court has expressed this view:
Municipal ordinances are inferior in stature and subordinate to the laws of the state. Accordingly, an ordinance must not conflict with any controlling provision of a state statute, and if any doubt exists as to the extent of a power attempted to be exercised which may affect the operation of a state statute, the doubt is to be resolved against the ordinance and in favor of the statute. A municipality cannot forbid what the legislature has expressly licensed, authorized or required, nor may it authorize what the legislature has expressly forbidden. [Rinzler v. Carson, 262 So.2d 661, 668 (Fla. 1972); emphasis supplied.]
Accordingly, we take the position that should such an ordinance as the one you describe become law, the disclosure required by it would be additional and cumulative to the disclosure requirements of the Florida Statutes, even if the ordinance were to provide that it was to supersede all other disclosure requirements. Therefore, were such an ordinance to take effect, you would be required to make both disclosures, unless the ordinance itself provided that it would be superseded by statutory disclosure, in which case only that disclosure required by state law need be made.