Unclear how new ethics rules will affect outside work
New law expands on how aldermen can make money on side
The ethics ordinance passed by the City Council this week that further restricts the outside work aldermen can do was seen as a signature win for Mayor Lori Lightfoot’s reform agenda.
But it’s not yet clear how the ordinance will play out or how the new limits on private employment will affect aldermen like Edward Burke, who has long had a lucrative sideline as a property tax attorney.
In an interview on WTTWCh. 11’s “Chicago Tonight,” Lightfoot acknowledged that the restriction on outside work “is designed to go after people like Ed Burke and others who decide that they are going to put their own pecuniary interests ahead of the interest of the taxpayers.”
She also acknowledged that how the ordinance will work in practice is not fully fleshed out, saying the city will “work with the Ethics Board to figure out the specific mechanics.”
The current law prohibits city employees and aldermen from making money off instances in which the city is a party, and the client’s interests oppose those of the city.
The new law expands that to include cases in which the city is not a party but “where the representation of the client may result in an adverse effect on city revenue or finances, or affect the relative tax burden or health, safety, or welfare of any City residents.”
One question that might need to be addressed is whether aldermen like Burke, whose involvement with a law firm largely prompted the provision, need to fully divest themselves of their ownership stake in their firm, or whether they could comply with the law by not working on cases that create conflicts with the city and also refrain from taking money from the firm’s work on those cases.
The Board of Ethics has, in the past, recognized “ethical screens,” said Steven Berlin, the board’s executive director, who responded to questions about the ordinance via email.
However, Berlin said, the Ethics Board has never seen “a screening arrangement in a law firm whereby an attorney is screened not only from working on particular matters, but also from receiving fees in that matter, which is not to say it doesn’t happen, just that we have not yet (been) presented with an issue that would require it.”
The ordinance increases fines for ethics violations — such as doing outside work that is now prohibited — from the current range of $500 to $2,000, to $1,000 to $5,000. Anyone can make a complaint to the Ethics Board or inspector general about an alleged ethics violation, Berlin said.
The fines would be up to $5,000 would be per offense, not per day, he said. He has recommended to the Ethics Board that “per offense” be defined as “each such proceeding in which an alderman or city employee would represent, or derive anything of value from the representation of, clients.”
“Thus, for example, representing client C in three distinct proceedings that could result in an adverse effect on the relative tax burden or health, safety, or welfare of city residents, whether in the same venue, such as the Cook County Circuit Court, the Illinois Industrial Commission, or the Cook County Property Tax Appeals Board, or in all three such different venues, would constitute three distinct offenses, each subjecting the City employee or elected official to a fine of up to $5,000,” Berlin said.
Rulings by the Ethics Board on alleged violations can be appealed to the Cook County Circuit Court, Berlin said.
Already, some aldermen with side jobs expressed concerns about how the ordinance might be enforced.
South Side Ald. Howard Brookins Jr., 21st, practices criminal defense law. His clients don’t win financial awards from the city, and he said administration officials told him the outside employment provision isn’t meant to address his kind of work. Nonetheless, he’s preparing for the possibility.
“You never know if you’ll get an overzealous ethics officer who wants to make it apply,” Brookins said.
If there is a ruling from the Ethics Board that says his law practice runs afoul of the ordinance, the alderman said he would sue the city.
“I’m just going to wait and see what happens,” he said.
Ald. George Cardenas, 12th, lists himself as a partner in a consulting business that bears his name. He’s also the owner of Southwest Side properties other than his home. He said he doesn’t think the new ordinance affects him.
“I’ve done some tax work for clients, but never intersecting with any public transactions of any kind,” Cardenas said. “I don’t do any appeals, I don’t take on any clients that have any interest with the city at all.”
“I think it definitely affects Ald. Burke,” Cardenas said. “Some folks are going to view this as sort of the Burke Ordinance. I see it as an attempt to further tighten the rules on conflicts of interest. If you’re an attorney, and that client has some sort of activity — whether it’s TIF, a zoning issue, whatever it might be, it’s clearly a conflict.”
West Side Ald. Chris Taliaferro is a registered attorney and retired city police officer who disclosed this year that he made between $5,000 and $24,999 from his law firm.
“You can’t advocate for two different sides,” said Taliaferro, 29th. “If you are an attorney, you can’t advocate against the city and then work for the city at the same time. That would be a conflict of interest. I just see (the ordinance) as a continuation of the responsibility of any attorney, not just Ald. Burke but also any other employment capacity as well.”
If an alderman is targeted with allegations under the new ordinance, Taliaferro said the process will play out through the city’s Ethics Board. But any decisions could also face court challenges.
One question could be whether an alderman who was elected prior to the ordinance taking effect is bound by the employment restrictions, he said.
“Are we infringing on a person’s right to employment, and if we are, was that infringement there prior to that person taking office or assuming the position?” Taliaferro said.
Berlin said he thinks that’s “a losing argument” — the new law won’t take effect until 90 days after it was passed, giving attorneys “ample time to withdraw from any pending cases and refer such cases to other lawyers or firms.”
“If someone could successfully argue that changes in the ethics ordinance were invalid as ex post facto laws, we’d never be able to amend the law and extend its prohibitions!” Berlin wrote.
Ald. Patrick Daley Thompson, 11th, a real estate lawyer who also handles governmental matters, did not return a message seeking comment about the ordinance.
Burke is under federal indictment, accused of using his clout to steer business to his private law firm. He has pleaded not guilty.
The longtime aldermen, who like everyone else on the City Council voted for the ethics package, has not commented on the ethics ordinance.