In Maunus v. State Ethics Comm'n, 518 Pa. 592, 600, 544 A.2d 1324, 1328 (1988), the Supreme Court limited the Ballou holding and held that attorneys employed in the public sector, such as attorneys employed by the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, are not exempt from complying with the Ethics Act's disclosure requirement. The Court reasoned that although the Supreme Court is the only governmental body entitled to regulate and discipline attorneys, "it is ludicrous to suggest that employers are constitutionally precluded from imposing ethical and professional requirements on their employees." Maunus, 518 Pa.at 597, 544 A.2d at 1326.