The Legal Advisories page contains the DAEOgrams on substantive ethics issues published by OGE from 1992 to 2010, the Advisory Opinions published by OGE from 1979 to 2010, and the Legal Advisories, which OGE began publishing in 2011.
84x16: Determining Whether Two Proceedings are “Same Particular Matter” under 18 U.S.C. § 207(a)
The former proceeding involved a threshold issue and a follow-up issue. The agency ruled based on the threshold issue, and the remand involved the follow-up issue. OGE determined the individual "personally and substantially" participated in the first proceeding and that both proceedings must be considered parts of the same particular matter.
84x15: Meaning of “Specific Party” and “Matter” as used in 18 U.S.C. § 207
"Specific party" in 18 U.S.C. § 207 is not limited to entities that were parties at the same time a former government employee had personal and substantial participation for a particular matter. Also, a draft RFP is a "matter" but 18 U.S.C. § 207(a) and (b)(i) do not apply until it becomes a matter involving a specific party or parties.
84x14: Scope of 18 U.S.C. § 205
The agency director was not prohibited from applying for an SBA loan for himself, as opposed to a corporation or partnership, because that section had never been interpreted to prevent an employee from representing himself before a federal agency or court. OGE suggested the director review a specific SBA regulation which might affect his plans.
84x13: Applicability of Conflict of Interest Statutes to Special Government Employees
Attorney did not qualify for certain limited restrictions of 18 U.S.C. §§ 203 and 205 for SGEs because he served more than 60 days in the preceding 365 day period. Because he was an SGE, 18 U.S.C. § 209 did not apply to him. 18 U.S.C. § 207(a) and (b)(i) would apply after termination, but 18 U.S.C. § 207(b)(ii) and (c) did not apply.
84x11: Use of Title of Government Position in Forward to Book
It would be improper for the agency head to write a forward for a book in his name as head of the agency or for his name and title to be used in the marketing and sale of the book, when the book was written by a private party and focused on the best use of the agency. Prohibited by 201(c) of EO 11222, and 5 C.F.R. part 735.201a(b).
84x10: Gift of Airline Tickets
An employee can accept lunch and certain winnings (airline tickets) because neither the luncheon host nor the airline that donated the tickets did business with the agency, was regulated by the agency, or had interests that could affect the employee's duties. (cites former 5 C.F.R. part 735)
84x12: Severance Pay and 18 U.S.C. § 209
OGE advised an employee after reviewing his former law firm's practice with regard to severance payments, that the severance payments made to the employee did not appear to constitute a supplementation of government salary prohibited by 18 U.S.C. § 209 or a violation of any other relevant conflict of interest statute or regulation.
84x9: Conflict of Interest Issues Raised by Re-Employment of Former General Counsel by Agency
A former general counsel of an agency would be prohibited by 18 U.S.C. § 205 from representing any client on matters before or within his former agency while an SGE for the agency.
84x8: "Excepted Trust" under 5 U.S.C. app. § 202(f)(2)(B)
The employee, attempted to make a trust created for his children into a trust excepted under 5 U.S.C. app. § 202(f)(2)(B). A blind trust requires approval by the OGE, and an excepted trust requires the employee to have no knowledge of the assets of the trusts when he took office.
84x7: Exception under 18 U.S.C. § 207(h) for Testimony by Former Government Employee
OGE advised a former employee that he may testify in a proceeding involving a dispute as to the interpretation of a settlement agreement in whose negotiations the former employee had personally and substantially participated as attorney representing a government commission. OGE's opinon was based on the exceptions found in 18 U.S.C. § 207(h).
84x5: Acceptance and Disclosure of Travel Expenses and Related Gifts
Agency-wide memo on the acceptance and disclosure of travel expenses and related gifts. The memo covers applicable criminal statutes and other related statutes, the administrative standards of conduct, relevant decisions of the Comptroller General and the public disclosure requirements of the Ethics in Government Act. Originally issued on May 1, 1984; amended on August 24, 1984.
84x6: Conflict of Interest Issues Raised by Spouse’s Employment on Retainer with a Government Contractor
OGE advised agency counsel that while an employee's spouse who worked on a retainer basis for a contractor might not have a financial interest for purposes of disqualifying the employee under 18 U.S.C. § 208 from participating, the relationship created a high degree of appearance of impropriety, and the employee should not participate.
84x4: Application of Conflict of Interest Statutes to Independent Counsel
Advised an individual appointed as an independent counsel of the applicability of 18 U.S.C. §§ 203, 205 and 209 to him and his continued law practice because of his probable status as a special government employee.
84x3: Application of 18 U.S.C. §§ 203, 205, 208, and 209 to Employee's Outside Law Practice
Advised employee about application of 18 U.S.C. §§ 203, 205, 208 and 209 to his outside practice of law as a member of a law firm (after agency approved the outside employment). Describes prohibitions he would be subject to under each statute.
84x2: Application of 18 U.S.C. § 207 Post-Employment Restrictions to Certain Proposed Activities
OGE advised that for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 207(a), the underlying commercial disputes between private parties should not be considered the same particular matters as the two treaty disputes between the US and Iran that the individual had personally and substantially participated in.
84x1: Applicability of 18 U.S.C. § 207 to Former U.S. Agent to the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal
Determined that 18 U.S.C. §§ 207(a) and (b)(ii) did not prohibit representations to the tribunal, but that the former employee was prohibited from making representations to current U.S. government employees if they were also involved in the matter.