2008-1150 - Laserfiche WebLink

• CONCLUSION. In re Amtext, Inc ., 625 So.2d 693 (La.App.l st Cir.1993) is analogous to the instant matter. There the court was required to determine the meaning of "thing of economic value". It stated: "It is necessary that such a determination be made on a case-by-case basis". Likewise, our decision is premised on the facts found herein. For the foregoing reasons, the Board is of the opinion that Taylor Porter would not become a "public employee" under the proposed legal services contract with LSU and, consequently, the Board would have no jurisdiction over Taylor Porter under the presented existing and projected facts. Also, the Board concludes that the proposed contract under which Taylor Porter would provide legal services to LSU would not violate any provision of the Code of Governmental Ethics. By Order of the Board Frank P. Simoneaux, Chair The pertinent rule of the Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct provides: Rule 1.7.Conflict of Interest: Current Clients(a)Except as provided in paragraph(b),a lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest.A concurrent conflict of interest exists if (1)the representation of one client will be directly adverse to another client;or (2) there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client,a former client or a third person or by a personal interest of the lawyer. • (b)Notwithstanding the existence of a concurrent conflict of interest under paragraph(a),a lawyer may represent a client if (1)the lawyer reasonably believes that the lawyer will be able to provide competent and diligent representation to each affected client; (2) the representation is not prohibited by law; (3) the representation does not involve the assertion of a claim by one client against another client represented by the lawyer in the same litigation or other proceeding before a tribunal; and(4) each affected client gives informed consent,confirmed in writing. Taylor Porter represents to the Board that the requirements of Subsections(b) (1) through (4) of Rule 1.7 will be fulfilled and specifically that LSU and OLOUFMOL are each willing to execute an informed consent to its representation of LSU in the given subject matter.This opinion is issued conditioned upon the above conditions being fulfilled. 2 Stated in governmental parlance, a public employee is an individual who is a member of the classified or unclassified Civil Service. 3 In governmental parlance,"governmental function"is sometimes referred to as"programmatic function". 4 When the Code was made applicable to local governmental entities; the term, "state function"was changed to"governmental function." s Of course,if a lawyer or law firm did contract with a legal services agency with the mission of providing legal services to the indigent public,the contracting lawyer or law firm would be performing a"governmental function" 6 The Board also notes that La R. S 42: 1141 C(4) (e)now requires "clear and convincing evidence" of a violation of a Code provision. The punitive measures include barring the violator from seeking or doing business with the governmental agency, cancellation or rescission of contract or permit or license,censure or levy of fines up to$10,000 or both,.remove or suspend pubic employee or reduction in his compensation, levy a fine equal to 11/2 of the economic advantage gained, forfeiture of gifts or payments unlawfully received,referring to the district attorney evidence of probable cause that a crime has occurred,and late filing fees up to$3000. See La.R. S.42:1148 et seq. i