ETHICS OPINION CLARIFIES IN-OFFICE REPRESENTATION BAN FOR LEGISLATOR’S LAW FIRM

Miami lawmaker Mike Redondo’s law firm may represent a health-care provider before state regulators without violating Florida’s in-office representation ban, the Florida Commission on Ethics has determined.

The commission voted unanimously Friday to approve a proposed ethics opinion that Rep. Redondo, who is in line to be House speaker in 2030, requested in a June 10 letter.

“Although the State Legislator may not personally represent a client for compensation before a State Agency, other members of his law firm can do so,” the ethics opinion states.

Redondo founded Redondo Law, P.A., in 2018 and was first elected to the House in 2023. Redondo recently chaired the Select Committee on Congressional Redistricting and serves on several health-related policy and budget committees.

In the letter, Redondo said his firm was considering representing a client with several licensed health care facilities in its dealings with the Agency for Health Care Administration.

Redondo noted that the engagement is “broad in scope and would encompass general regulatory and administrative counsel,” including licensure and renewal matters, Medicaid reimbursement, and administrative complaints, among other things.

But referring to the constitutional in-office representation ban, and a nearly identical provision in F.S. §112.313(9)(a)(2), Redondo pledged that he would not personally represent the client before AHCA or any other executive branch state agency.

“I will not appear before the agency, sign pleadings, applications, or correspondence directed to the agency on the Client’s behalf, communicate with agency staff as the Client’s advocate, or attend agency hearings or workshops on the Client’s behalf,” Redondo wrote.

Furthermore, “no member or employee of the Firm will identify me as a member of the Legislature, or reference my legislative office, in connection with the engagement – whether in filings, correspondence, marketing, or any communication with the agency or Client,” Redondo wrote.

Article II, Section 8(e) of the Florida Constitution states, in relevant part, that, “No member of the legislature shall personally represent another person or entity for compensation during term of office before any state agency other than judicial tribunals.”

Ethics Commission staff determined that the arrangement Redondo described would satisfy the restrictions.

“If you stay within these proposed boundaries, it does not appear that you will be at risk of violating the in-office representation ban,” the opinion states.

The opinion goes on to note that a provision of §112.3145(6) will still require Redondo to file quarterly reports naming the clients he represents before state agencies.

The in-office representation ban, however, would not prohibit Redondo from personally representing the client in circuit court, or “any judicial tribunal,” in litigation to which AHCA is a party, the opinion notes, citing the “judicial tribunal” exemption.

“In essence, the agency has no proceedings before it which affect the legislator’s client; the proceedings are before the court, a judicial tribunal,” the opinion states.

However, because the Department of Administrative Hearings does not meet the definition of a “judicial tribunal,” Redondo would not be allowed to personally represent the client before the division, the opinion says.

“The Legislature also has the ability to enact statutes governing DOAH’s activities, including how proceedings under Chapter 120 are conducted,” the opinion states. “As such, the in-office representation ban will prevent you from personally representing a Client in a DOAH proceeding while you are a State Legislator.”