Court Blocks Key Parts of L.A. Ethics Law : Government: Judge’s temporary ruling says that the city has not shown urgent need to enforce the ordinance against certain municipal employees and non-elected officials.

A Superior Court judge on Thursday temporarily blocked enforcement of key provisions of the city ethics law that require thousands of Los Angeles municipal employees to disclose their personal finances.

In response to lawsuits filed by a group of city officials and their family members and a separate suit by four unions, Judge Ronald M. Sohigian ruled that the city had not demonstrated an “urgent need” to enforce the ordinance against certain city employees. In the absence of court action, the ruling held, the plaintiffs would risk “adverse employment consequences, criminal prosecution and/or civil litigation for alleged violation of the ordinance.”

Without the injunction, more than 3,000 of the 17,000 employees belonging to city unions would have had to file financial disclosure forms by Thursday. The injunction temporarily prevents the city from penalizing those who do not file or who violate restrictions on gifts and honorariums.

Sohigian’s ruling also applies to the nine non-elected officials who filed suit against the ordinance in June. They claimed that the ethics law, which requires detailed disclosure of personal finances, is onerous and violates employees’ rights to privacy.

The injunction does not prohibit enforcement of the ethics provisions against elected officials, city commissioners, or others in city government not specifically named in the suit or represented by a labor organization.

The ethics law was enacted by voters in June, 1990, in the wake of allegations of ethics violations in the mayor’s office. However, efforts to enforce it have been mired in controversy, with complaints from city employees and officials that gift restrictions and requirements to disclose personal finances are excessive.

Originally billed as the nation’s most comprehensive local ethics law, the measure requires some city employees to disclose their income and investments, bans honorariums and most gifts and prohibits elected officials from having outside employment. City officials who resign their posts also are barred for one year from seeking employment with companies that had done business with their agencies. The same restriction applies to lobbying activities.

Plaintiffs and attorneys praised Sohigian’s decision, and noted that the judge left open the possibility that the plaintiffs could return to court and expand the injunction to others not named in the suits.

“We felt the provisions of this ordinance were vague, unconstitutional and invaded the privacy rights of the employees of the city,” said Margo Feinberg who represents city union employees. “Judge Sohigian agreed with us. . . . We are hopeful that with this message to the city, it will not be necessary to go to trial, that we’ll be able to sit down, meet and confer to create an ordinance that meets constitutional muster.”

Douglas R. Ring, a city library commissioner, lobbyist and attorney who filed one of the suits, said he would be “more than happy” to ask the court to extend its decision to other city employees, including elected officials, not covered by the injunction.

Frederic D. Woocher, who is representing the city, said he was disappointed by the judge’s decision but pleased that it was limited to union employees and a few other city officials.

“We’re pleased it doesn’t reach as broadly as the plaintiffs (initially) wanted, but we’re disappointed the court stepped in at all,” said Woocher. “The Ethics Commission and council are addressing some of the issues addressed by the lawsuit and had been before the suit was filed.”

Woocher added that the city had already been unable to enforce several provisions because penalties were not properly spelled out in the law.

In his lawsuit, Ring, who was named to the Library Commission in 1989, said that the law’s restrictions on lobbying would have forced him to suspend his activities as an advocate for a year if he resigned from the part-time commission post.

He also charged that the law’s definition of gifts is “so broad as to include a cup of coffee, a ride in a car, a parking validation and the like.”

Woocher said the ethics law was never intended to cover such petty items but does not specifically say so.’

If anything under $25 were permissible, Woocher said, then lobbyists would “go around giving everyone a $24.99 bottle of wine.”

“People who can do that shouldn’t have greater access,” he said.

Both sides said they will be ready for trial early next year.