Loebig v. Florida Commission on Ethics
A former Department of Revenue taxpayers' rights advocate challenged a Commission on Ethics advisory opinion holding that the Department was his "agency employer" for the two-year post-employment representation ban in section 112.313(9)(a)4. The First DCA reversed, holding that after the 2018 amendments transferring appointment and direction of the advocate to the Chief Inspector General, the Department merely provides administrative support and does not control the advocate's duties, so it is not his employing agency. The court also held that because the Code of Ethics is penal, any ambiguity in "employed" must be strictly construed in the employee's favor.
Key facts
- Loebig, a former Department of Revenue taxpayers' rights advocate, challenged a Commission on Ethics advisory opinion that designated the Department as his 'agency employer' for purposes of the two-year post-employment representation ban.
- After 2018 amendments transferred the advocate's appointment and direction to the Chief Inspector General, the Department provided only administrative support and payroll processing but did not control the advocate's substantive duties.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
The opinion is a useful precedent for anyone advising public officers and employees on Florida's two-year revolving-door restriction: the court adopts a control-based, tort-law-influenced test for identifying the… — full analysis with a trial
Read the full opinion, holdings & search — free for 30 days
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision — in your hands.
- Search every tracked Florida decision in seconds
- Save, tag & file the cases that matter into your own library
- Read the full plain-English analysis and holdings
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.