PROVIDENCE — Former East Providence Mayor Joseph Larisa Jr. was fined $500 by the state Ethics Commission yesterday for representing a client before that community’s City Council in July 2007.

The commission ruled 4 to 2 that Larisa broke the Ethics Code’s “revolving door” rule that bars officials from appearing before their own agencies for one year after leaving office. In East Providence, the mayor is a City Council member.

The prohibition is intended to keep officials from using the influence they gain from office to further their own interests afterward.

Larisa — a lawyer and candidate for an at-large council seat in November’s election — had been out of office for about seven months. However, he agreed to be legal counsel for local Canvassing Authority member Thomas Riley in a predisciplinary hearing before the council.

Larisa argued he didn’t violate the regulation in question because he didn’t charge Riley a fee and there was a “great” public and First Amendment interest in the matter.

“I represented Mr. Riley for free because I wanted to defend and protect the causes for which he stood as a member of the board, in particular the scheduling of regular meetings at night [like other city boards] and an active investigation into continued allegations of voter fraud in East Providence,” Larisa said yesterday at the Ethics Commission’s adjudicatory hearing.

He continued, “I consider these matters to be of important public interest. As such, I believe that by representing Mr. Riley, I was engaged in the practice of public-interest law — that is, representing a client for free to further a greater cause.”

Larisa said comments made at a previous council meeting led him to believe the Democratic members of the council were trying to remove Riley, a Republican, from the authority because he was the “whistleblower” and “only crusader” against voter fraud. Larisa said the hearing had little to do with Riley’s questionable e-mails — others characterized the writings as “vulgar” — to another authority member and more of an “excuse” to halt Riley’s efforts.

The complaint to the ethics board was also filed by former city Democratic Chairman John F. Conley.

“Either during my tenure with [former Governor Almond as Almond’s executive counsel from 1995 to 2003] or at some point shortly thereafter, I formed a legal opinion that the revolving-door prohibition prevented representation of private interests for financial gain after leaving office,” Larisa said reading from his affidavit. “It was my opinion based upon applicable law and regulation, that the ban did not affect representation involving no financial gain, especially when the representation was pro bono and concerned an issue of general public interest.”

The commission’s senior staff lawyer, Katherine D’Arezzo, disagreed as she prosecuted the matter.

“Mr. Larisa will claim this is partisan politics at its worst,” D’Arezzo said. “… But his representation occurred prior to his one year severance from the council. Such conduct runs afoul of the revolving door prohibition.”

She also said if Riley had been removed, by statute, he would have been replaced with another Republican and therefore it could not be “partisan politics.”

As for Larisa’s pro bono and First Amendment arguments, she said the revolving door rule doesn’t have any exception for pro bono work or matters involving “significant public interest.” She said she found it “inconceivable” that a disciplinary hearing for an individual could be of great public interest.

Larisa said he would appeal the panel’s decision to the Superior Court.

apina@projo.com