|
|
|
 |
|
|||||||||
2002 FINAL STATELEGISLATIVE PROGRAM MIDDLE RANGE ISSUE ISSUE: RESTRICTIONS ON LEGISLATORS REPRESENTING CLIENTS SUMMARY: Public concern over potential conflicts of interest of members of the General Assembly has prompted calls for restrictions on the activities of lawmakers. In some cases sponsors of these proposals have a legitimate desire to prohibit potential corruption or the perception of misconduct. In other instances the goal of these bills has been to embarrass political opponents. The Maryland General Assembly is a part-time legislature, with a membership from a broad array of professions. The 2001 General Assembly had members from the legal profession (17%), business interests (33%) and the education community (12%), as well as a large number who described themselves as full-time legislators (19%). The current salary of members of the General Assembly is $30,591 per year plus office and per diem expenses. Most legislators must have another source of income to supplement their salary, such as a part-time job or a spouse's earnings. It is the second part-time income that has aroused concerns that special interest groups may be hiring legislators and paying salaries in return for favors from these elected officials. Lawyer-legislators have been subjected to criticism from groups who charge that their votes have been affected by clients who compensate them for their legal services. Other critics have sought to curb the ability of these attorneys to practice law before executive and judicial branch agencies. Because legislators must vote on bills that impact virtually every economic activity in the state, and lawyers often represent clients from many of these same concerns, it leaves the lawyer-legislators open to criticism that the competing interests are having an adverse effect on their performance in both professions. Legislation that passed the 1995 General Assembly placed restrictions on a legislator's representation of clients for compensation before State agencies in any matter involving procurement or the adoption of regulations. This bill was amended to exclude judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative hearing (contested cases) bodies from coverage under the Act. Since that time there have been no additional attempts to revise the law in this area, but some interest groups have begun to question the propriety of lawyer-legislators voting on bills that would benefit their law practices. The decline of attorneys running for elective office in recent years is likely to continue if laws are passed to restrict the clientele or the activities of lawyer-legislators. At the same time, members of the General Assembly who practice law must have a clear understanding of their legislative role and their legal role and avoid the appearance of impropriety. MSBA 2002 POSITION: Monitor all legislation restricting the activities of lawyer-legislators. SAMPLE LEGISLATION:
|
||||||||||
