PROVIDENCE — Former Senate President William V. Irons has found an unusual tactic to defend himself against the state ethics charges against him, one nobody has apparently ever tried to use before: He has demanded a jury trial.

Irons’ move comes as the state Ethics Commission is on the brink of following its normal process under state law, holding a trial-like hearing and then deciding on Irons’ guilt or innocence.

An attempt to settle the case collapsed April 3, when the commission members rejected a settlement negotiated by its staff. The terms the commission rejected haven’t been made public. The commission had already scheduled an adjudicatory hearing once, for the same day. State law directs the commission to decide ethics cases after holding such hearings to hear testimony and other evidence.

Katherine D’Arezzo, the commission’s senior staff attorney, said yesterday that nobody has made a similar demand for a jury trial in her decade at the commission, and that her research showed no sign that anybody had ever done so before that. Irons’ lawyer, John A. Tarantino, said the same: this is new legal ground.

However, Tarantino said, “We believe there’s a very good argument that he’s entitled to a trial by jury.”

Replacing the commission with a jury to resolve cases would raise a number of questions, notably how a jury would be appointed and who would act as the judge. The courts have mechanisms for that, but the Ethics Commission doesn’t. Tarantino said there is a simple answer to that: send the case to Superior Court, where a judge and jury from that court could hear it.

The jury approach could take much longer than the normal commission process. And where the Irons case had appeared close to resolution through a commission hearing and decision, Irons’ demand for a jury seems likely to be disputed and that dispute likely to end up in court.

D’Arezzo suggested that the commission staff may oppose Irons’ demand, saying, “I don’t believe they have a right to a jury trial.” She said she expects the staff and Irons’ lawyers to argue the point via legal briefs before the commission and, assuming the commission rejects the demand that the case be referred to a jury, she said she expects Irons would appeal that decision to the courts.

In the case before the commission, Irons is accused of breaking the state’s ethics laws by using his office for financial gain and by voting on pharmacy legislation where he had a substantial conflict of interest. The charges stemmed from Irons’ involvement in the Senate Corporations Committee’s consideration of pharmacy “freedom of choice” legislation in 1999 and 2000, when he chaired the committee. An insurance salesman, Irons had business dealings with CVS and Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Rhode Island. He resigned from the Senate in February 2004.

Although Irons’ lawyers haven’t made clear the legal foundation for their demand, their one-sentence initial filing with the commission cites two provisions of Article One of the state Constitution.

One provision, Section 10, contains the rights of accused persons in criminal proceedings, including the right to an impartial jury along with the right to legal representation, to subpoena witnesses and to know the charge against them. That section doesn’t mention civil proceedings, such as state ethics cases. But the other provision, Section 15, does mention civil cases in guaranteeing the right to a trial by jury.

Tarantino also said that even though the demand breaks new legal ground, there is relevant case law that he will cite in arguing his case before the commission.

Unlike other state agencies, the commission is established by the state Constitution, which gives it the power to investigate ethics violations and impose penalties. That provision doesn’t mention juries. Neither does the section of the state statute that provides for adjudicatory hearings before the commission.

An Ethics Commission adjudicatory hearing is similar to a trial. Commission staff lawyers prosecute the case, and the accused official is represented by his own lawyers. The hearing can include witness testimony and other evidence, and the commission members rule on guilt or innocence afterward. Adjudicatory hearings have been rare because accused officials generally agree to pay fines to settle their cases.

If the commission finds an official guilty after the hearing, it can impose a fine of up to $25,000 and remove the offender from office. It can also refer the case to the attorney general for prosecution.

blandis@projo.com