OFFICE OF GOVERNMENT ETHICS

                          80 x 8

    Letter to a Former Employee dated October 24, 1980


     This is in response to your October 2, 1980 letter of inquiry
regarding the post-employment restrictions of the Ethics in
Government Act of 1978, as amended.

     You have indicated that until July of 1980 you were employed
as a GS-15 Administrative Law Judge assigned to [an agency] and
that you presided at [certain types of benefits] hearings.

     Your letter does not give the factual details of any specific
case.  Consequently, our response is limited to a general
discussion of the post-employment restriction issues raised in the
three basic questions which you have posed.

     First, you inquire as to whether the post-employment
restrictions would prevent you from representing claimants who
seek [the subject] benefits at hearings before Administrative Law
Judges [of your former agency]. Then you pose a variation of that
question by inquiring as to whether you may represent an applicant
for [these] benefits who has had his original application denied
at a hearing at which you presided and then, in lieu of an appeal,
files a new application.

     Your third question deals with your representation of a
claimant on rehearing when you initially made a finding [that the
claimant was entitled to certain benefits], and several years
later the [agency] decides to have the claimant reexamined
resulting in a termination of benefits.

     We are of the opinion that as to your first question, as a
general proposition, nothing in the post-employment restrictions
would prevent you from representing new claimants who seek [these]
benefits at hearings before Administrative Law Judges [of your
former agency].  However, as to questions two and three, there are
certain specific qualifying factors which may bar future
representational activities on your part.

     The applicable statute covering the situations which give
rise to your questions, in relevant part, states that:

     (a)  Whoever having been an officer or
     employee of the Executive branch of the United
     States Government . . . after his employment
     has ceased, knowingly acts as agent or
     attorney for anyone, or otherwise represents
     others than the United States in connection
     with any judicial or other proceeding,
     application, request for ruling or other
     determination, claim or controversy or other
     particular matter involving a specific party
     or parties in which the United States is a
     party or has direct and substantial interest
     and in which he participated personally or
     substantially as an officer or employee,
     through decision, approval, disapproval,
     recommendation, the rendering of advice,
     investigation or otherwise while so
     employed . . . -- shall be fined not more than
     $10,000, or imprisoned not more than two
     years, or both.

     Our implementing regulations of this statutory provision
state that the same particular matter may continue in another form
or in part.  Further, in determining whether two particular
matters are the same, "the agency should consider the extent to
which the matters involve the same basic facts, related issues,
the same or related parties, time elapsed, the same confidential
information and the continuing existence of an important Federal
interest."

     Thus, since the term "particular matter" applies to specific
cases or matters and not to a general area of activity, you may
represent new claimants [for these benefits]. However, if the same
or related issues are involved in a reapplication hearing referred
to in your second question or the rehearing referred to in your
third question, you are precluded by the statute as well as our
regulatory interpretations from taking part in such
representational activity.  A copy of our final regulations is
attached for your information.

     It is further suggested that, in view of the fact that each
type of problem you raise requires a case by case analysis, you
consult with the [your former agency's] Designated Agency Ethics
Official [name and address deleted] before undertaking any
specific representational activities in matters where you have
actually been involved as a presiding judge.

        In responding to your inquiry, this Office has not considered
the effect, if any, of the Code of Professional Responsibility as
it may apply to your future plans.

                                Sincerely,

                                J. Jackson Walter
                                Director