Advisory Opinion No. 1996-3
Directed To Persons Outside
Agency With Official
Jurisdiction Not Exempt From
Definition Of
Lobbying As The
Practice Of Law
An attorneys communications regarding the proposal,
drafting, development, consideration, amendment, adoption or repeal of any rule
or regulation constitute lobbying, regardless of whether they might also
constitute the practice of law.
See
Conn. Gen. Stat. §1-91(k)(3). By
Regulation, the State Ethics Commission has confirmed that generic policies which
affect the rights, duties or privileges of classes of persons are analogous to
rules and regulations and will be treated similarly. Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies
§1-92-42a(c). An attorneys
communications regarding generic policies of such description will, therefore,
constitute lobbying. Prior to the 1995 legislative amendment to the Code of
Ethics for Lobbyists which established the practice of law exemption (P.A.
95-144), the State Ethics Commission promulgated Regulations of Connecticut State
Agencies §1-92-42a(a)-(e). Section
1-92-42a(a) exempted from the definition of lobbying a number of activities,
most of which are now identifiable as the practice of law under the
Commissions current interpretation.
Nevertheless, Section 1-92-42a(b) provided that communications for the
purpose of influencing the outcome of a matter, made to persons outside of the
agency which has official jurisdiction over the matter, were not exempt from
the definition of lobbying, even when the subject of the communications would
be otherwise exempt. For example, contact
with the Governors Office requesting intercession in a contested case before
the Workers Compensation Commission would be lobbying, even though
representation of the client before the WCC would be exempt. See Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies
§§1-92-42a(a)(3), (b). Public Act 95-144 was intended to, and did no more than,
codify the above regulatory language.
Most particularly, the practice of law amendment did not exempt from
the definition of lobbying the very conduct, i.e., contact with
officials outside the agency with official jurisdiction over a matter, which
impelled the original expansion of the Lobbyist Codes definition of
administrative action (P.A. 94-69).
The Commission therefore concludes that an attorneys communications
with persons outside of the agency with official jurisdiction over his or her
clients matter constitutes lobbying, even when such communications might
also be deemed the practice of law. By order of the Commission, David T. Nassef
Chairperson