CARSON CITY -- The Nevada Supreme Court on Thursday gave the green light to Las Vegas Councilman Michael Mack to go forward with his lawsuit against the state Ethics Commission.
The court rejected an Ethics Commission petition to force District Judge Sally Loehrer to dismiss the suit. It said it would not interfere with the case at this point, but the Ethics Commission could file an appeal if it loses.
Mack filed suit to erase an opinion issued in November 2003 that criticized Mack and the City Council although it said Mack did not violate any ethics laws when he refrained from voting on an issue because of an attorney relationship.
Mack, who is being represented by the city attorney's office, in his suit, said the Ethics Commission exceeded its authority and had made errors in its ruling. He said the decision should be set aside.
The case arose when Eric Goodman an attorney and son of Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman, represented somebody before the council. Mack disclosed that Eric Goodman had performed legal work for him but added it would not have any effect on his ability to vote on the issue.
Later Mack said he was advised by the city attorney's office that it was prudent for him to abstain based on an attorney-client relationship. He refrained from voting.
The Ethics Commission declined to find he violated any ethics rules, but it said Mack failed to make an adequate disclosure. The commission said Mack should have provided sufficient information about the potential conflict for the public to judge whether the attorney-client relationship would materially affect his judgment.
"Councilman Mack was deprived of that opportunity when his disclosure and abstention decision making process was preempted by advice from the Las Vegas city attorney's office that compelled him to abstain, disclosing merely an attorney-client relationship,"the Ethics Commission said.
It said his disclosure did not meet the requirements of the law. It criticized the city attorney's office for telling council members to automatically abstain and disclose nothing more than an attorney-client relationship.
The commission said that in e similar cases in the future it will not tolerate disclosures that merely cite an attorney-client as the reason for abstaining from voting.
The case will return to Loehrer for further consideration.
"I'm looking forward to going before Judge Loehrer, and I'm glad the Supreme Court made the right decision," Mack said. He declined to comment further.
archive