In public, Suarez says he’s not Ken Griffin’s attorney. Under oath, he said differently

Miami Mayor Francis Suarez has long said that he has no conflict of interest when it comes to his public support for billionaire hedge funder Ken Griffin, a major client of the law firm where Suarez is employed.

But in an interview conducted under oath in December, Suarez contradicted previous public statements and said he is one of Griffin’s attorneys — a potential violation of ethics laws prohibiting elected officials from working for anyone who has business before their government.

In his sworn statement to a state ethics investigator, Suarez said Griffin was not just a client of the law firm where he works, but his own personal client. The mayor made that point as part of a successful effort to get the Florida Commission on Ethics to dismiss an unrelated complaint against him. But in calling Griffin “my client,” Suarez also raised a possible conflict of interest under Florida law, given that Griffin is lobbying the city for various permissions as he moves his personal residence and company headquarters to South Florida.

While Florida laws governing outside employment would not prevent the mayor from working for a firm whose clients have official business with the city of Miami, the law prohibits Suarez from doing legal work for those clients, according to a formal ethics opinion issued to Suarez in 2021.

And Suarez would be in violation of state ethics laws, the letter warned, if “any client for whom he is performing legal services is conducting business with [not just the City Commission, but] any subordinate city board or staff.” The restriction would apply, the ethics officials wrote, regardless of whether Suarez recused himself from any related city matters.

The mayor’s office is now walking back Suarez’s sworn statement. In response to the Herald’s latest questions, the mayor’s director of communications, Stephanie Severino, said Griffin “is not and has never been a personal client of Mayor Suarez.” Nor, she said, is Suarez on Griffin’s account at the law firm where Suarez works.

As to why Suarez said otherwise while under oath during an official proceeding, Severino responded, “Similar to millions of other professionals whose firms serve clients, the Mayor informally referred to [the law firm’s] client, Mr. Griffin as ‘his client,’ as would be evident to anyone who read the full interview and context.”

Severino said the reporters’ questions exposed the Herald’s “biased agenda,” saying “if the Mayor walked on water, the Herald would report ‘Mayor Suarez can’t swim.’”

If he lied under oath, Suarez could face a third-degree felony for perjury with maximum penalties of five years in prison and a $5,000 fine.

Read the Miami Herald investigation: Shakedown City

Relevance to state investigation

Suarez mentioned his business relationship with Griffin on Dec. 20 during a 20-minute interview conducted by ethics investigator Tracey Maleszewski, who was looking into whether the mayor had violated separate ethics laws by accepting Griffin’s invitation to his luxury suite at last year’s Formula One Miami Grand Prix and other events on the F1 party circuit.

That case was dismissed earlier this month after Griffin produced a canceled check showing the mayor had reimbursed him for the full price of high-end Sunday race track tickets and a $3,000 per-plate luxury dinner for both Suarez and his wife. The record’s date shows Suarez cut the $14,000 check to Griffin after the Herald first asked questions about potential ethics violations, but within the 90-day grace period for repayment to avoid penalties.

“The weekend was very expensive for me … much more than I anticipated,” Suarez told Maleszewski during his interview. Maleszewski’s investigation did not account for all of Suarez’s other VIP passes that weekend, which would have added thousands to the total price tag. Suarez has repeatedly declined to answer questions about who paid for at least two, yet-unaccounted-for VIP passes.

Suarez told Maleszewski that Griffin was his personal client while making the case that such reimbursement was probably unnecessary, an apparent reference to legal exemptions that allow elected officials to accept expensive gifts primarily related to their private employment without being subject to the usual regulations.

“I did attend with my wife at the behest of or as a guest of Ken Griffin,” Suarez told Maleszewski about the meals at Carbone Beach, a dinner-club the couple attended on May 6 before also joining Griffin in a luxury suite at the F1 races the following day.

“In an abundance of caution, and even though he was also my client, and I could have arguably justified it on that basis, I went ahead, and because he’s a lobbyist, I went ahead and paid for the dinner,” he said.

Ethics advocate Melody Hadley advised the commission that Suarez should be cleared of any violation, in part, because the mayor received the tickets from Griffin as part of his private employment.

“Along with Respondent [Suarez] being routinely called upon to bring greetings on behalf of the City, he advised that Griffin is a client of his law firm which he explains is why the tickets were given to him by Griffin, not with an expectation that he take any action in his public capacity,” wrote Hadley in her February recommendation. “Furthermore, Respondent timely compensated Griffin for the value of the tickets.”

Hadley added: “As such, there is no evidence of a solicitation and/or acceptance of a gift.” The commission ultimately agreed during a closed-door hearing on March 8.

‘Mr. Suarez has done no work for Mr. Griffin’

But Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan previously told the Herald that Suarez’s attendance at F1 “was unrelated to any matter the firm is handling.” And the firm, where Suarez has made millions since joining in 2021, also maintains that Suarez does not work on any cases involving Griffin or Citadel.

“Quinn Emanuel stands by its prior statement that Mr. Suarez has done no work for Mr. Griffin or Citadel as an employee of the firm,” a spokesperson told the Herald. “Questions about what Mr. Suarez meant in his interview should be directed to him.”

Griffin’s company Citadel did not answer the Herald’s questions about whether Griffin was Suarez’s personal client, and instead sent a statement touting the case’s dismissal. “As we said last week and as we will keep saying every time we are asked, there is no there there, and there never was,” said Citadel spokesperson Zia Ahmed.

During the interview, investigator Maleszewski did not ask for clarification after Suarez said Griffin was his personal client. Nor did she mention ethics rules prohibiting business relationships between elected officials and anyone lobbying the city, despite Suarez’s repeated declarations that Griffin is “a lobbyist.”

When the Herald asked Florida Commission on Ethics spokesperson Lynn Blais about Suarez’s comment and whether it presented a conflict of interest for him if Griffin were in fact his direct client, she wrote by email: “We cannot give an opinion about a person’s conduct.”

Blais said that only “a public officer or public employee who is in doubt about the applicability of the standards conduct to himself or herself may seek an advisory opinion from the Commission.”

The Herald asked Blais what happens when a state ethics investigator discovers a potential ethics violation separate from the one they are investigating at the time, as is potentially the case with Suarez.

“The Commission on Ethics cannot conduct investigations of alleged violations of the Sunshine Amendment or the Code of Ethics unless a person files a sworn complaint with the Commission alleging such violation has occurred,” Blais responded. “The commission cannot self-initiate an investigation.”