FL Appeals Court Finds Substantial Evidence Supported the Finding that City Attorney Acted Corruptly When Seeking Appointment as Zoning Hearing Officer and Code Enforcement Special Magistrate

This post was authored by Matthew Loeser, Esq.

Robert K. Robinson served for more than thirteen years as the city attorney for the City of North Port pursuant to lucrative contracts, of approximately $340,000 per year plus travel and other expenses, between the City and Robinson’s law firms. A couple of months before the end of Robinson’s contract as city attorney, he drafted and presented ordinances to the city commission to create the positions of Zoning Hearing Officer and Code Enforcement Special Magistrate. Robinson then persuaded the city commission to appoint him to those positions without considering anyone else, claiming he was “uniquely qualified” for the positions and the appointments had to be made immediately. In this case, Robinson appealed the final order and public report in which the Commission on Ethics recommended a $10,000 civil penalty and a public censure and reprimand for ethical violations committed by Robinson while he was serving as a contracted city attorney.

On appeal, Robinson argued that the Commission erred in finding that he violated section 112.313(6) because the evidence does not establish that he acted “corruptly” as required by the statute. The record reflected that Robinson persuaded the city commission to create and appoint him to the new positions of Zoning Hearing Officer and Code Enforcement Special Magistrate. Furthermore, Robinson had substantial influence over the drafting of the ordinances creating the positions; advised on the qualifications necessary for each position; and offered the commission his services as the best qualified person without providing any option other than to appoint him immediately. Accordingly, the court found Robinson misused his position as city attorney to create an unfair advantage for himself and gain a personal benefit.

Robinson next argued that the Commission erred in finding that he violated section 112.313(16)(c) because the Commission misconstrued that statute. This statute “prohibits a local government attorney from representing a person or entity before the local government for which the attorney provides legal services.” The court found that the word “represent,” refers to “actual physical attendance on behalf of a client in an agency proceeding ….” As such, the court determined that the term “client” should not be broadly construed to include Robinson’s representation of himself or his law firm before the city commission. Instead, the court found a local government attorney who is found to have misused his position by “corruptly” obtaining legal work or other special benefits or privileges for himself or his firm, as in this case, could be found guilty of violating section 112.313(6). Since the court found the Commission misconstrued section 112.313(16)(c), the court reversed the Commission’s determination that Robinson violated that statute.

Robinson Commission on Ethics, 2018 WL 1528504 (FL App 3/29/2018)