Disclosure and Recusal

Determining when disclosure alone is enough or when recusal or withdrawal is the more appropriate course of action can also be a challenge. For example, may an attorney in private practice represent clients before a planning or zoning board where her spouse sits as a member? While one may assume that the ethics inquiry is a matter solely for the municipal official, does the attorney have an obligation to disclose the relationship to

their client? Furthermore, does professionalism dictate that the lawyer attempt to ascertain whether her firm is being retained for the hearing in an effort to garner votes due to the marital status of a lawyer in the firm and a board member? In a recent opinion of the California Attorney General, it was opined that a city council may enter into a development agreement with a land developer when one of the council members is married to an attorney whose law firm represents that developer on other matters, so long as the council member discloses the interest to the council on the record, and the member does not participate in negotiating or voting upon the agreement. [FN21]

A Georgia court held that where the planning commissioner's son was a member of a law firm, even where the son had no direct involvement in the representation, the commissioner was prohibited from participating in the proceedings for the zoning application. [FN22] The court also referred to the local ethics code which prohibited a municipal officer from participating in a matter involving an interest of an immediate relative. [FN23] The court stated, "Public interest requires that Cobb County protect against improper influence or the appearance of improper influence...." [FN24] The court did not address the motives or the integrity of the lawyers involved; rather it focused on the conduct of the planning commissioner