Case Name: Frank A. HOWARD, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida COMMISSION ON ETHICS, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1982-10-26
Citations: 421 So. 2d 37
Docket Number: No. 81-1747
Parties: Frank A. HOWARD, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida COMMISSION ON ETHICS, Appellee.
Judges: Before SCHWARTZ, NESBITT and JOR-GENSON, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 421
Pages: 37–41

Head Matter:
Frank A. HOWARD, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida COMMISSION ON ETHICS, Appellee.
No. 81-1747.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Oct. 26, 1982.
Frank A. Howard, in pro. per.
Philip C. Claypool, Staff Atty., Com’n on Ethics, Tallahassee, for appellee.
Before SCHWARTZ, NESBITT and JOR-GENSON, JJ.

Opinion:
NESBITT, Judge.
Pursuant to Section 112.322(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1979), attorney Howard instituted a request for an advisory opinion from the Florida Commission on Ethics concerning the potential for conflict between certain employment in which he was engaged. Uppn receiving an adverse opinion from the Commission, Howard commenced the present appeal.
On our own initiative, we have inquired into our jurisdiction to entertain and decide an appeal from an advisory opinion and decide that we do, in fact, have jurisdiction. While it is true that Howard merely sought an advisory opinion, upon its issuance by the Commission, that opinion became binding on the conduct of Howard. See § 112.322(3)(b), Fla.Stat. (1979). As such, it constituted final agency action ap-pealable under Section 112.3241, Florida Statutes (1979) which, in part, provides:
Any final action by the commission taken pursuant to this part shall be subject to review in a District Court of Appeal upon the petition of the party against whom an adverse opinion, finding, or recommendation is made.
A similar question was presented in Zerweck v. State Commission on Ethics, 409 So.2d 57 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). In that case, a complaint was filed alleging that Mr. Zerweck violated Section 112.313(7)(a), Florida Statutes (1979). After a hearing, the Commission determined that Zerweck was indeed violating the statute, but decided not to issue a determination of violation or imposition of a penalty. The state argued that Mr. Zerweck was precluded from judicial review because of the Commission's failure to make a formal determination. Rejecting that argument, the court held:
It is incontrovertible that the final report of the Commission concluded that Mr. Zerweck's "employment with DJM Properties, Inc., posed a frequently recurring conflict with public duties." This is an explicit finding that Mr. Zerweck violated the statute and, thus, his entitlement to judicial review is clear. It is of no consequence that the Commission, in the exercise of its discretion, declined to "formalize" its finding or to impose further penalties. Branding a public official as a law-violator is a penalty in itself. More importantly, the right to judicial review is not dependent on the imposition of a penalty. Rather, it turns upon the existence of an adverse opinion, finding, or recommendation. Once articulated, the Commission cannot shield its finding from judicial scrutiny by failing to "formalize" it.
409 So.2d at 60. Thus, it is clear that an advisory opinion, made binding on the party, is subject to appellate review by this court. Furthermore, had Howard not appealed the advisory opinion, that determination would have become res judicata of the issues presented therein. See DeBusk v. Smith, 390 So.2d 327 (Fla.1980). Consequently, we have jurisdiction.
Having determined that this court properly has jurisdiction over this matter, we may now proceed to the merits. Howard is an attorney, licensed and authorized to practice law in Florida. He does not dispute the fact that he occupies the dual status of being an employee of the Dade County School Board serving as school board attorney, as well as being a partner in a law firm which has also contracted to provide legal services to the school board. Both contracts are renewable on an annual basis, and both salaries are fixed so that they will not increase regardless of the time, nature, or extent of the services rendered by either.' The advisory opinion is sued by the Commission on Ethics stated that this dual employment presented a conflict of interest which was prohibited under Section 112.313(3), Florida Statutes (1979).
Howard first argues that Section 112.-313(3), supra, interferes with the plenary jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to regulate the practice of law under Article V, Section 15 of the Florida Constitution. We find nothing in the legislative policy evinced by Sections 112.311 and 112.316, Florida Statutes (1979), construed in pari materia with Section 112.313(3), which interferes with the constitutional authority of the Supreme Court to regulate the practice of law. The statutes enacted by the legislature merely supplement the Canons of Professional Responsibility adopted by the Supreme Court. When an attorney decides to accept public employment, he does so subject to the legislative proscription on his conduct.
Howard has presented a plausible argument that the Commission placed a highly technical and unrealistic construction upon the statute. By its plain terms, the statute prohibited Howard from serving as a public employee at the same time that he is a partner in a law firm which is providing legal services to the school board. This prohibition was imposed without any hint of wrongdoing or impropriety on Howard's part. While we enforce the obvious power conferred upon the Ethics Commission, we do so reluctantly where, in its broad application, the statute prohibits dual positions without any allegation of impropriety.
Affirmed.
. Section 112.322(3)(b), supra, provides:
Said opinion, until amended or revoked, shall be binding on the conduct of the officer, employee, or candidate who sought the opinion or with reference to whom the opinion was sought, unless material facts were omitted or misstated in the request for the advisory opinion.
. This statute is authorized by Article V, Section 4(b)(2) of the Florida Constitution which provides: "District Courts of Appeal shall have direct review of administrative action, as prescribed by general law."
.It would have been of great assistance to this court if the attorney for the Commission had advised us of the Fourth District's decision in Zerweck, supra (a case in which the attorney for the Commission participated), when we inquired about our jurisdiction at oral argument.
. The advisory opinion is reproduced in the appendix to this opinion.
. There is no suggestion by Howard that the legislature exceeded its authority by the enactment of Section 112.313(3), supra.