Yocum v. PA Gaming Control Board
Yocum v. PA Gaming Control Board - No. 74 MM 2015
| Pa. | May 25, 2017Background
- Attorney Susan A. Yocum, a former employee of the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board, challenged provisions of the Gaming Act (4 Pa.C.S. §§ 1201(h)(8) and (13)) that restrict employment and post-employment representation related to the gaming industry.
- The dispute raises whether the General Assembly may, by statute, restrict lawyers’ post‑government practice or in‑service job‑solicitation without usurping the Supreme Court’s exclusive constitutional authority to regulate the practice of law (Pa. Const. art. V, § 10(c)).
- The opinion is a concurring and dissenting opinion by Justice Wecht: he joins the Court’s conclusions on standing and ripeness but disagrees with the Majority’s reliance on a “general applicability” test to uphold the statutes.
- Key doctrinal tension: the Court’s precedents that struck down post‑employment practice restrictions (Wajert) and extended that principle to former government attorneys (Shaulis) versus cases upholding ethics rules that apply to current government employees (Maunus, P.J.S.).
- Justice Wecht contends that statutes that effectively limit former government attorneys’ ability to practice are unconstitutional under Wajert and Shaulis, but restrictions on current employees’ job‑seeking conduct may fall within legislative authority.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Gaming Act provisions violate separation of powers by regulating practice of law | Yocum: provisions unconstitutionally infringe the Court’s exclusive authority to regulate the practice of law, especially as applied to former government attorneys | Board: provisions are generally applicable ethics/regulatory measures, not targeted at lawyers, so within legislative power | Justice Wecht: unconstitutional as applied to former attorneys (invoking Wajert/Shaulis); not unconstitutional as to restrictions on current employees seeking employment |
| Whether the Court should apply a “general applicability” test (statute covers non‑attorneys) | Yocum: statutory breadth that includes non‑attorneys cannot cure an unconstitutional intrusion on regulation of lawyers | Board: because statute applies to a broader class (many non‑attorneys), it doesn’t “target” the practice of law and is constitutional | Wecht: rejects Majority’s emphasis on legislative intent/general applicability; effect on attorneys matters regardless of breadth |
| Whether Wajert and Shaulis bar post‑employment practice restrictions on former government attorneys | Yocum: Wajert and Shaulis protect former judges and government attorneys from statutory bans on practicing their profession after leaving public employment | Board: relies on Maunus/P.J.S. and general regulatory authority over public employees | Wecht: Wajert and Shaulis control — post‑employment bans on practicing law are unconstitutional as applied to former government attorneys |
| Whether restrictions on current government attorneys negotiating or seeking private employment are permissible | Yocum: these restrictions are burdensome and may unduly limit livelihoods; Court’s rules already address conflicts | Board: statute is a permissible general regulation of current employees to prevent conflicts | Wecht: restrictions on job‑seeking while in service fall within Maunus/P.J.S. and are constitutional; Court’s rules (Pa.R.P.C. 1.11) also regulate these matters but do not displace permissible statutes |
Key Cases Cited
- Shaulis v. Penna. State Ethics Comm’n, 833 A.2d 123 (Pa. 2003) (held post‑government practice restrictions on former attorneys impermissible under Court’s authority to regulate practice of law)
- Wajert v. State Ethics Comm’n, 420 A.2d 439 (Pa. 1980) (invalidated a one‑year restriction preventing a former judge from appearing before his former court)
- Maunus v. Commonwealth, State Ethics Comm’n, 544 A.2d 1324 (Pa. 1988) (upheld ethics restrictions applied to government employees during their public service)
- P.J.S. v. Penna. State Ethics Comm’n, 723 A.2d 174 (Pa. 1999) (addressed ethics requirements for government employees while in office)