Can a value adjustment board's private lawyer also represent the property appraiser or tax collector in Florida?

Plain-English summary

Every Florida county has a value adjustment board (VAB), which hears property-tax disputes. A 2008 law required each VAB to hire its own private counsel and barred that counsel from representing "the property appraiser, the tax collector, any taxing authority, or any property owner in any administrative or judicial review of property taxes." The Department of Revenue asked the Attorney General two things: does the bar reach all representation of those officials or only their property-tax cases, and does it look only at current representation or also past representation?

Attorney General Bill McCollum read the statute through its grammar. The qualifying phrase "in any administrative or judicial review of property taxes" sits after a comma and a disjunctive "or," so it modifies only "any property owner," not the officials listed before it. That means a VAB's private counsel may not represent the property appraiser, tax collector, or any taxing authority in any matter, not just in tax-review proceedings, while the property-owner limitation is confined to tax-review work. On the second question, because the 2008 amendment was prospective and showed no intent to apply retroactively, past representation does not automatically disqualify an attorney from now serving the board; whether prior work creates a conflict is a question for The Florida Bar.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2010. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Why did a comma decide how broad the prohibition is?
A: The AG applied the ordinary rules of grammar and the doctrine of the last antecedent: a qualifying phrase applies to the words right before it unless something signals otherwise. The comma before "or any property owner" cut off the "administrative or judicial review" phrase from the earlier list, so that phrase limits only the property-owner clause. The Legislature is presumed to know grammar and punctuation, and courts read statutes accordingly.

Q: So can a VAB's lawyer ever also work for the property appraiser?
A: Under this opinion, no, not in any matter relating to the appraiser's official duties. Reading it any other way would let private counsel do what the old law forbade when the county attorney served the board, and the 2008 change was meant to tighten, not loosen, that line.

Q: Does the property-owner limitation work the same way?
A: No. For "any property owner," the bar is narrower: it applies only to representation "in any administrative or judicial review of property taxes." A private VAB attorney is not categorically barred from all work for property owners, only from representing them in property-tax review.

Q: If an attorney previously represented the property appraiser, are they disqualified?
A: Not by the statute itself. The opinion found no language making the prohibition retroactive, and Florida presumes statutes operate prospectively. Whether a past representation creates an ethical conflict is something to take to The Florida Bar.

Background and statutory framework

Section 194.015, Florida Statutes, creates a value adjustment board in each county and requires it to appoint private counsel who has practiced law for more than five years. Before the 2008 amendment, the county attorney could serve as the board's counsel unless the county attorney also represented the property appraiser, in which case private counsel had to be appointed. The 2008 act (analyzed in House staff analysis of CS/HB 909) precluded county attorneys from serving as board counsel at all and added the representation bar at issue here.

The AG's analysis rested on settled construction principles: the primary goal is legislative intent (City of St. Petersburg v. Siebold); under the doctrine of the last antecedent, qualifying words apply to the phrase immediately preceding them (Mallard v. Tele-Trip Company); and the Legislature is presumed to know grammar and punctuation, so the way an act is punctuated informs its meaning (Florida State Racing Commission v. Bourquardez; S.R.G. Corporation v. Department of Revenue). The AG noted that if the Legislature had placed the qualifier after "represent" or added a comma after "any property owner," the modifier would have reached all the listed officials, and suggested legislative clarification. On retroactivity, the AG applied the presumption that statutes operate prospectively absent a clear showing otherwise.

Citations and references

Statutes:

• s. 194.015, Fla. Stat. (value adjustment board; private counsel and representation bar)
• s. 194.015, Fla. Stat. (2007) (prior version permitting the county attorney to serve)

Cases:

• City of St. Petersburg v. Siebold, 48 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 1950)
• Mallard v. Tele-Trip Company, 398 So. 2d 969 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
• Florida State Racing Commission v. Bourquardez, 42 So. 2d 87 (Fla. 1949)
• S.R.G. Corporation v. Department of Revenue, 365 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 1978)

Subject

Value adjustment board, limitation on private counsel

Source

• Landing page: https://www.myfloridalegal.com/ag-opinions/value-adjustment-board-limitation-on-private-counsel
• Original PDF: https://www.myfloridalegal.com/print/pdf/node/1724

Original opinion text

Ms. Lisa Echeverri

Executive Director

Florida Department of Revenue

5050 West Tennessee Street

104 Carlton Building

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100

RE: VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD – COUNTIES – ATTORNEYS – limitation on private counsel representing value adjustment board. s. 194.015, Fla. Stat.

Dear Ms. Echeverri:

You ask the following questions:

1. Does the prohibition against representation in section 194.015, Florida Statutes, apply to any type of representation of the property appraiser, the tax collector, or any taxing authority or does it apply only to representation in an administrative or judicial review of property taxes?

2. Does the prohibition apply only to current representation or does it include past representation in legal matters?

In sum:

1. Private counsel representing a value adjustment board may not represent in any manner the property appraiser, the tax collector, or any taxing authority, as well as any property owner in any administrative or judicial review of property taxes.

2. In light of the prospective nature of the statutory changes and the absence of any legislative indication that the prohibition in section 194.015, Florida Statutes, should be applied retroactively, it does not appear that past representation precludes a private attorney from presently representing a value adjustment board.

Section 194.015, Florida Statutes, creates a value adjustment board for each county. The value adjustment board is required to appoint private counsel, who has practiced law for over five years and who shall receive such compensation as may be established by the board. The statute further provides that "[t]he private counsel may not represent the property appraiser, the tax collector, any taxing authority, or any property owner in any administrative or judicial review of property taxes."

Your question involves an interpretation of whether the phrase "in any administrative or judicial review of property taxes" relates only to "any property owner," or whether it relates also to the property appraiser, the tax collector, and any taxing authority in determining the extent of representation which would preclude private counsel from representing the value adjustment board.

In determining the meaning of a statute, the primary consideration is to give effect to the intent of the Legislature.[1] The legislative history of the act states that it amends section 194.015, Florida Statutes, to "preclude county attorneys from serving as counsel to the board," and to require all boards to appoint private counsel to represent the board.[2]

Prior to its amendment in 2008, section 194.015, Florida Statutes, allowed the office of the county attorney to be counsel to the value adjustment board "unless the county attorney represents the property appraiser, in which instance the board shall appoint private counsel who has practiced law for over 5 years and who shall receive such compensation as may be established by the board."[3] There was no modifying language that precluded representation by a county attorney only if he or she represented the property appraiser in an administrative or judicial review of property taxes.

The placement of a comma preceding the disjunctive "or" would appear to preclude the qualifying phrase "in any administrative or judicial review of property taxes" from modifying the clause which precedes the comma.[4] To interpret the legislation otherwise would allow private counsel to represent the board and property appraiser under conditions that were historically prohibited when the board was represented by the county attorney. It is a general rule of statutory construction that ordinary rules of grammar and punctuation are to be used in determining construction of a statute. The Legislature is presumed to know the meaning of words and rules of grammar and, thus, the Legislature's intent may be ascertained by giving the generally accepted construction not only to the phraseology of an act, but also to the manner in which it is punctuated.[5]

Thus, applying the rule of construction that the qualifying language relates only to the clause appearing after the comma and giving effect to the legislative intent to preclude dual representation of the board and the property appraiser, I would conclude that section 194.015, Florida Statutes, precludes value adjustment board representation by a private attorney who represents the property appraiser, tax collector, or any taxing authority in matters relating to their official duties.

Had the Legislature placed the qualifying term "in any administrative or judicial review of property taxes" after "represent" or placed a comma after "any property owner," it would have been clear that the modifying term applied to all of the enumerated officials and entities. It may be advisable, therefore, to seek legislative clarification of this matter.

There is a presumption that a legislative act operates prospectively only, unless there is a clear showing of retrospective intent.[6] No language in the statute or in the legislative history of the act indicates an intent to apply the prohibition retrospectively. Any question as to whether past representation by a private attorney may present a conflict to representing the value adjustment board would need to be addressed to The Florida Bar.

Accordingly, it is my opinion that private counsel retained by a value adjustment board may not represent the property appraiser, tax collector, or any taxing authority in any matter. Any potential conflict with past representation should be addressed by The Florida Bar.

Sincerely,

Bill McCollum

Attorney General

BM/tals

[1] See, e.g., City of St. Petersburg v. Siebold, 48 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 1950).

[2] House of Representatives Staff Analysis, CS/HB 909, April 13, 2008.

[3] Section 194.015, Fla. Stat. (2007).

[4] See Op. Att'y Gen. Fla. 83-60 (1983) and Mallard v. Tele-Trip Company, 398 So. 2d 969 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (under doctrine of last antecedent, relative and qualifying words and phrases are to be applied to the word or phrase immediately preceding).

[5] See Florida State Racing Commission v. Bourquardez, 42 So. 2d 87 (Fla. 1949) (Legislature is presumed to know meaning of words and rules of grammar; court is advised of Legislature's intention by giving the generally accepted construction not only to phraseology of act but to manner in which it is punctuated); S.R.G. Corporation v. Department of Revenue, 365 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 1978); Ops. Att'y Gen. Fla. 77-142 (1977) (punctuation is a part of an act and may be considered in act's interpretation); 93-26 (1993) (Legislature is presumed to know meaning of words and the rules of grammar; thus, legislative intent is first to be determined by the language used, considered in its ordinary grammatical sense); 99-62 (1999).

[6] See, e.g., State ex. rel. Bayless v. Lee, 23 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 1945); Trustees of Tufts College v. Triple R. Ranch, Inc., 275 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 1973); Seddon v. Harpster, 403 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 1981). And see generally 82 C.J.S. Statutes s. 414.