# Shaulis v. Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission

> Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · October 21, 1999 · 739 A.2d 1091

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9714177

## Case

- **Full name:** Kathleen K. SHAULIS, Petitioner, v. PENNSYLVANIA STATE ETHICS COMMISSION, Respondent
- **Court:** Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** October 21, 1999
- **Citations:** 739 A.2d 1091
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by McGINLEY
- **Judges:** Colins, Doyle, McGinley, Pellegrini, Kelley, Flaherty, Leadbetter
- **Cited by:** 6 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9714177

## Opinion text

McGINLEY, Judge,
concurring and dissenting.
I respectfully dissent to the majority’s conclusion that “the Commission’s March 24, 1999 opinion is an adjudication as defined by Section 101 of the Administrative Agency Law” and that “there clearly is a case or controversy between the parties.”
Kathleen K. Shaulis (Shaulis) requested “advice from the State Ethics Commission as to what extent the Ethics Law imposes restrictions upon an attorney following retirement from the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue in publishing articles and/or books on the subject of Pennsylvania states [sic] taxes.” 1 Letter of January 11, 1999, at 1; Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 3a. On February 19, 1999, the State Ethic Commission (Commission) responded to Shaulis’ inquiry pursuant to Section 1107(10) and (11) of the State Ethics Act, Pa.C.S. § 1107(10) and (11). After a request for further clarification the Commission issued an advisory opinion on March 18,1999.
An advisory opinion is nothing more than the view of the Commission on certain issues that affords , a “requestor” certain defenses. Because an advisory opinion addresses questions concerning proposed future conduct there is no case or controversy and no right of appeal. “It is well established that a judicial determination that is unnecessary to decide an actual dispute constitutes an advisory opinion and has no legal effect.” Borough of Marcus Hook v. Pennsylvania Municipal Retirement Board, 720 A.2d 803, 804 (Pa.Cmwlth.1998). “In general, the courts of this Commonwealth may not exercise jurisdiction to decide issues that do not determine the resolution of an actual case or controversy.” Id. at 804 .
Pa. R.A.P. 1504 provides:
If a petition for review is filed against any person, where the proper mode of relief is ... a petition for a declaratory judgment ... this alone shall not be a ground for dismissal, but the papers whereon the improvident matter was commenced shall be regarded and acted upon as a complaint or other proper process commenced against such person and as if filed at the time the improvident matter was commenced. The court *1107 may require that the papers be clarified by amendment.
I would grant the Commission’s alternative request and treat Shaulis’ petition for review as a petition for declaratory judgment filed in our original jurisdiction.
I do concur with the majority’s conclusion that the Commission’s advisory opinion goes beyond our Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in P.J.S. v. Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission, 555 Pa. 149 , 723 A.2d 174 (1999), because “all former public officials/public employees are [not] attorneys ... this fact does not automatically result in the restrictions found in Section 1103(g) of the Act becoming applicable to the legal representation by an attorney who is a former public official/public employee before his or her former governmental body.” I would grant the relief requested by Shaulis pursuant to the “Declaratory Judgment Act”, 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 7531-7551.
Ju'dge FLAHERTY joins in this concurring & dissenting opinion.
. Shaulis' request was made pursuant to Section 7(10) of the State Ethics, 65.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9714177. Public record. Not legal advice.