top of page
  • nmbtruth
    • Nov 10, 2023
    • 1 min read

MDC Ethics Commission Clears Former City Attorney Hans Ottinot

Updated: Nov 15, 2023

Updated 11/14/2023


According to the Miami-Dade County Ethics Commission, former North Miami Beach City Attorney Hans Ottinot did nothing wrong advising commissioners to boycott meetings to resist the now former Mayor Anthony "Tony" Defillipo residency fraud!


No Probable Cause Found in Complaint Filed Against Former North Miami Beach City Attorney Hans Ottinot in his handling of residency fraud allegations of then Mayor Anthony Defillipo

Additional information will be made available as soon the MDC Ethics Commission responds to our request for a copy of their investigation and order dismissing this complaint.


Update from 11/14/2023 below:


The MDC Ethics Commission responds:

In response to your public records request regarding please click on the link below to see the Legal Sufficiency Memo, Probable Cause Memo, the Complaint Form, as well as other exhibits. The final order is unavailable at this time but as soon as it is signed by the COE Chairwoman, I will make sure to get it to you.

The memo provided is 70 pages long but here are a few interesting sections:

Recommendation. There is No Probable Cause to believe that Respondent, managing partner and majority shareholder of Ottinot Law, P.A., which was the former City Attorney for the City of North Miami Beach, violated the Miami-Dade County Conflict of Interest and Code of Ethics Ordinance (“County Ethics Code”), as alleged in the Complaint.1 Additionally, insofar as the Complaint alleges violations of the Miami Dade County Citizens’ Bill of Rights Convenient Access and Right to be Heard provisions, as well as violations of certain provisions of the City of North Miami Beach City Charter and Code of Ordinances, it should be found Not Legally Sufficient.

The Ethics Investigation into the actions of former city attorney Hans Ottinot on the basis of whether he did so with the corrupt intent to gain a special benefit (i.e. keep his job)...

Here, there is insufficient evidence to establish probable cause that Respondent provided legal advice in his official capacity as City Attorney with the purpose of gaining a special benefit to himself or another, or that directly impacted his financial interests. First, the advice provided by Respondent did not concern Ottinot Law’s contract with the City of North Miami Beach. Rather, the evidence reflects that Respondent advised the City Commission as a body that he concurred in the conclusion reached by the outside counsel, Mr. Suarez, concerning then-Mayor DeFillipo’s residency or lack thereof in the City of North Miami Beach. See Exhibit F. Individually, Commissioner Fleurimond testified that Respondent advised him, upon his request, that actions taken by the City Commission where then-Mayor DeFillipo could be challenged due to the residency issue addressed in the outside counsel’s memorandum. City Commissioners Jean and Joseph testified that, when they solicited his advice, Respondent advised them not to attend City Commission meetings at which then-Mayor DeFillipo sought to preside. The Respondent testified that he did not recall specific conversations, but he recalled that he advised these City Commissioners that decisions of the City Commission at which then-Mayor DeFillipo sought to preside could be subsequently challenged, and he recalled advising the City Commissioners that it was their own choice to attend City Commission meetings at which then-Mayor DeFillipo sought to preside. In sum, the legal matters on which the Respondent opined concerned the residency of then-Mayor DeFillipo, and whether or not City Commissioners should attend City Commission meetings at which then-Mayor DeFillipo presided and the legal consequences if they did so. None of these topics concern the terms or conditions of the Respondent’s firm’s contract with the City of North Miami Beach, as contemplated by the Ethics Commission’s past opinions. See RQO 19-01; C19-14-04 - Letter of Instruction.

The Ethics Investigation reviewed whether the hiring of outside law firm of Luis Suarez, Esq. was proper to review the matter of the Defillipo residency fraud allegations and to defend the city from Defillipo's subsequent lawsuit...

Here, the matter about which Respondent hired Mr. Suarez as outside counsel did not involve the terms or conditions of Ottinot Law’s contract with the City of North Miami Beach to serve as City Attorney; rather, it concerned a question involving the residency of then-Mayor DeFillipo. See Exhibit D; Exhibit F. Thus, it appears that the alleged conduct would fall outside of the ambit of conduct covered by Section 2-11.1(p) of the County Ethics Code because it involved the hiring of outside counsel to augment or supplement the City Attorney’s ability to provide competent legal counsel by seeking to avoid an appearance of a conflict of interest. See RQO 19-01; RQO 10-12. Furthermore, even if Respondent’s decision to hire Mr. Suarez as outside counsel constituted conduct governed by Section 2-11.1(p) of the County Ethics Code, this Commission has acknowledged that city attorneys may retain outside counsel without first consulting with the municipal elected body, by whatever means provided for under municipal law, provided that the retainer be presented to the city commission “as soon as practicable.” RQO 19-01. As discussed above, there was no City Commission meeting with sufficient quorum to conduct business between when Respondent indicated an intent to retain outside counsel in his communications with City Commissioner Joseph in December 2022 and Ottinot Law’s resignation from the office of City Attorney in March 2023. See Exhibit D; Exhibit I. Thus, because there was no City Commission meeting at which business could be conducted during the remainder of Ottinot Law’s time in office as City Attorney, it was not practicable to present the hiring of the outside counsel to the City Commission during that time and there is not probable cause to believe that Respondent violated the County Ethics Code by failing to do so.

The Ethics Investigation reviewed Ottinot's advice to the three commissioners that they can choose to boycott meetings to avoid the city committing illegal actions...

Here, the complained of alleged action by the Respondent was his legal advice to three City of North Miami Beach City Commissioners not to attend City Commission meetings while then- Mayor DeFillipo sought to preside over said meetings. The provision of legal advice by the City Attorney to City Commissioners is not the type of action that the Right to be Heard provision of the Citizens’ Bill of Rights proscribes; rather, it concerns the right of a citizen to appear before a County or municipal agency, board, or department at one of their meetings and address that agency, board, or department about a matter within their jurisdiction. See Citizens’ Bill of Rights § (A)5. As such, it is recommended that this Commission find that the Complaint does not state a legally sufficient violation of the Citizens’ Bill of Rights Right to be Heard provision.

At the end, the Ethics Investigation found allegations made in the ethics complaint were not supported by the evidence or did not actually make an allegation that violated ethics rules.

Conclusion Based on the investigation conducted, interviews taken, and supporting documentation obtained, it is recommended that this Commission find that there is No Probable Cause to conclude that Respondent, Hans Ottinot, Esq., violated Section 2-11.1(g), entitled “Exploitation of official position prohibited,” Section 2-11.1(n), entitled “Actions prohibited when financial interests involved, and Section 2-11.1(p), entitled “Recommending professional services,” of the County Ethics Code Furthermore, because the allegations in the Complaint do not constitute a violation of the Miami- Dade County Citizens’ Bill of Rights Convenient Access and Right to be Heard provisions, and because the Ethics Commission lacks jurisdiction over the City of North Miami Beach City Charter and Section 2-1.1a of the City of North Miami Beach Code of Ordinances, it is recommended that this Commission find that there is No Legal Sufficiency for an investigation to be conducted into the Complaint’s allegations asserting violations of those provisions. Accordingly, it is recommended that this Complaint be dismissed.

That's it folks!


51 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All
bottom of page