Supreme Court of Florida

____________

No. SC13-889

____________

THE FLORIDA BAR RE: ADVISORY OPINION—ACTIVITIES

OF COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION MANAGERS.

[May 14, 2015]

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to Rule Regulating the Florida Bar 10-9.1, The Florida Bar Real 

Property, Probate, and Trust Law Section petitioned the Standing Committee on 

Unlicensed Practice of Law (Standing Committee) for an advisory opinion 

regarding certain activities when performed by non-lawyer community association 

managers. Petitioner asked the Standing Committee to examine a 1996 advisory 

opinion from this Court, Florida Bar re Advisory Opinion–Activities of 

Community Association Managers, 681 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 1996), and advise 

whether the activities in the opinion that were found to be the unlicensed practice 

of law continue to constitute the unlicensed practice of law. Further, Petitioner 

asked whether fourteen additional activities, when performed by non-lawyer 

community association managers, constitute the unlicensed practice of law. As 
2

required under rule 10-9.1(f), the Standing Committee provided notice of and held 

a public hearing to address these issues where it considered written and live 

testimony. The Standing Committee subsequently filed a proposed advisory 

opinion in this Court. We have jurisdiction to review the proposed advisory 

opinion pursuant to rule 10-9.1(g) of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar and 

article V, section 15, of the Florida Constitution.

After the proposed advisory opinion was filed, interested parties were 

permitted to file briefs in support of or in opposition to the proposed advisory 

opinion. After considering the proposed opinion and the briefs of the interested 

parties, the Court approves the proposed advisory opinion as set forth in the 

appendix to this opinion.1

It is so ordered.

LABARGA, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANADY, POLSTON, 

and PERRY, JJ., concur.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND 

IF FILED, DETERMINED.

Original Proceedings – The Florida Bar

 

1. As provided in Rule Regulating the Florida Bar 10-9.1(g)(4), the advisory 

opinion shall have the force and effect of an order of this Court and shall be 

published accordingly.
3

C.C. Abbott, Chair, Standing Committee on the Unlicensed Practice of Law, 

Tallahassee, Florida; Nancy Munjiovi Blount, Past Chair, Standing Committee on 

the Unlicensed Practice of Law, Tallahassee, Florida; John F. Harkness, Jr., 

Executive Director, Lori S. Holcomb, Director, Client Protection, and Jeffrey Todd 

Picker, The Florida Bar, Tallahassee, Florida,

On behalf of the Standing Committee on the Unlicensed Practice of Law

Michael Allen Dribin, Chair, Real Property, Probate and Trust Law Section of The 

Florida Bar, Harper Meyer Perez Hagan O’Connor Albert & Dribin, LLP, Miami, 

Florida; Margaret Ann Rolando, Past Chair, Real Property, Probate and Trust Law 

Section of The Florida Bar, Shutts & Bowen, LLP, Miami, Florida; William F. 

Belcher, Saint Petersburg, Florida, on behalf of the Real Property, Probate and 

Trust Law Section of The Florida Bar; Jennifer Ann Winegardner of The Chase 

Law Firm, Tallahassee, Florida, on behalf of the Continental Group, Inc., 

Associations, Inc., and CEOMC Florida, Inc.; Mauri Ellis Peyton, II and Gian C. 

Ratnapala of PeytonBolin, PL, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, on behalf of Community 

Associations Institute; David Mark Felice, Tampa, Florida, on behalf of Terra 

Management Services, Inc.; Jeffrey Michael Oshinsky, Miami, Florida, on behalf 

of Association Financial Services, L.C.; Mark R. Benson, Community Association 

Manager, Fort Myers, Florida; and Steve Caballero, Community Association 

Manager, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, on behalf of Exclusive Property Management,

Responding
4

APPENDIX

THE FLORIDA BAR

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE 

UNLICENSED PRACTICE OF LAW

FAO #2012-2, ACTIVITIES OF COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION MANAGERS

_________________________________________________________________/

PROPOSED ADVISORY OPINION

May 15, 2013
5

INTRODUCTION

Pursuant to rule 10-9 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, The Florida 

Bar’s Real Property, Probate & Trust Law Section petitioned the Standing 

Committee on Unlicensed Practice of Law (“the Standing Committee”) for an 

advisory opinion on the activities of community association managers (“CAMS”).2

The petitioner sought confirmation that the activities found to be the 

unlicensed practice of law in the 1996 opinion (Florida Bar re: Advisory Opinion–

Activities of Community Association Managers, 681 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 1996)) 

continue to be the unlicensed practice of law. Those activities (hereinafter 1996 

opinion) include the following:

A. drafting of a claim of lien and satisfaction of claim of lien;

B. preparing a notice of commencement;

C. determining the timing, method, and form of giving notices of 

meetings;

D. determining the votes necessary for certain actions by community

associations;

E. addressing questions asking for the application of a statute or rule; and

F. advising community associations whether a course of action is 

 

2. Although the request for opinion addresses CAMS specifically, the 

Standing Committee’s opinion would apply to the activities of any nonlawyer.
6

authorized by statute or rule.

The petitioner also asked if it was the unlicensed practice of law for a CAM 

to engage in any of the following activities (hereinafter “2012 request”):

1. Preparation of a Certificate of assessments due once the delinquent 

account is turned over to the association’s lawyer; 

2. Preparation of a Certificate of assessments due once a foreclosure 

against the unit has commenced;

3. Preparation of Certificate of assessments due once a member disputes 

in writing to the association the amount alleged as owed;

4. Drafting of amendments (and certificates of amendment that are 

recorded in the official records) to declaration of covenants, bylaws, and 

articles of incorporation when such documents are to be voted upon by the 

members;

5. Determination of number of days to be provided for statutory notice;

6. Modification of limited proxy forms promulgated by the State;

7. Preparation of documents concerning the right of the association to 

approve new prospective owners;

8. Determination of affirmative votes needed to pass a proposition or 

amendment to recorded documents;

9. Determination of owners’ votes needed to establish a quorum;
7

10. Drafting of pre-arbitration demand letters required by 718.1255, Fla. 

Stat.;

11. Preparation of construction lien documents (e.g. notice of 

commencement, and lien waivers, etc.);

12. Preparation, review, drafting and/or substantial involvement in the 

preparation/execution of contracts, including construction contracts, 

management contracts, cable television contracts, etc.;

13. Identifying, through review of title instruments, the owners to receive 

pre-lien letters; and

14. Any activity that requires statutory or case law analysis to reach a

legal conclusion.

Pursuant to Rule 10-9.1(f) of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, public 

notice of the hearing was provided on The Florida Bar’s website, in The Florida 

Bar News, and in the Orlando Sentinel. The Standing Committee held a public 

hearing on June 22, 2012.

Testifying on behalf of the petitioner was Steve Mezer, an attorney who is 

the chairman of the Condominium and Planning Development Committee of the 

Real Property Probate and Trust Law Section of The Florida Bar, and attorney 

Scott Peterson. In addition to the petitioner, the Standing Committee received 

testimony from Mitchell Drimmer, a CAM; Jeffrey M. Oshinsky, General Counsel 
8

of Association Financial Services, a licensed collection agency; Andrew Fortin, 

Vice-President of Government Relations for Associa, a community management 

company; Kelley Moran, Vice-President of Rampart Properties and a CAM; 

Robert Freedman, an attorney; Erica White, prosecuting attorney for the 

Regulatory Council of Community Association Managers located within the 

Department of Business and Professional Regulation; Jane Cornett, an attorney; 

Tony Kalliche, Executive Vice-President and general counsel for the Continental 

Group, a community association management firm; David Felice, an attorney, a 

CAM, and owner of a community association management firm; Christopher 

Davies, an attorney; Brad van Rooyen, Executive Director of the Chief Executive 

Offices of Management Companies; Victoria Laney; Alan Garfinkel, an attorney; 

and Michael Gelfand, an attorney. There were also several individuals present to 

observe the hearing.

In addition to the testimony presented at the hearing, the Standing 

Committee received written testimony which has been filed with this Court. 

Included in the written testimony was a form petition that was submitted by 

hundreds of homeowner and condominium associations. As the petitions are 

substantially the same, only one has been filed with the Court as part of the written 

testimony. By and large the testimony reflects the belief that the previous 

guidance provided by the Court in its 1996 opinion provides adequate guidance in 
9

this area and another opinion is not necessary. The testimony also reflected their 

concerns that too much regulation in this area will raise the cost of living in these 

communities and could potentially have a serious financial impact on community 

associations, property owners, and CAMS.

Background

CAMS are licensed through the Department of Business and Professional 

Regulation, Division of Professions, pursuant to Sections 468.431 – 468.438, 

Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code chapters 61E14 and 61-20. 

(Written testimony of Dr. Anthony Spivey.) State law defines community 

association management as including the following activities: “controlling or 

disbursing funds of a community association, preparing budgets or other financial 

documents for a community association, assisting in the noticing or conduct of 

community association meetings, and coordinating maintenance for the residential 

development and other day-to-day services involved with the operation of a 

community association.” Section 468.431(2), Florida Statutes (2012). There are 

over 18,500 individuals and over 1600 businesses licensed as CAMS in Florida. 

(Written testimony of J. Layne Smith.)

1996 Opinion

When the Court considered the activities of CAMS in 1996, it relied on 
10

Sperry3to determine what activity constitutes the practice of law:

[I]n determining whether the giving of advice and counsel and the 

performance of services in legal matters for compensation constitute 

the practice of law it is safe to follow the rule that if the giving of [the] 

advice and performance of [the] services affect important rights of a 

person under the law, and if the reasonable protection of the rights and

property of those advised and served requires that the persons giving 

such advice possess legal skill and a knowledge of the law greater 

than that possessed by the average citizen, then the giving of such 

advice and the performance of such services by one for another as a 

course of conduct constitute the practice of law.

Applying the test, the Court held that:

[T]he practice of law also includes the giving of legal advice and 

counsel to others as to their rights and obligations under the law and 

the preparation of legal instruments, including contracts, by which 

legal rights are either obtained, secured or given away, although such 

matters may not then or ever be the subject of proceedings in a court.4

The Standing Committee and Court found that those activities that required 

the interpretation of statutes, administrative rules, community association 

governing documents or rules of civil procedure constituted the practice of law.5

Drafting documents, even if form documents, which require a legal description of 

the property or which determine or establish legal rights are also the practice of 

 

3. The Florida Bar v. Sperry, 140 So. 2d 587, 591 (Fla. 1962), vacated on 

other grounds, 373 U.S. 379 (1963).

4. Id.

5. 1996 opinion, 681 So. 2d at 1123.
11

law.6 As the opinion noted, failure to complete or prepare these forms accurately 

could result in serious legal and financial harm to the property owner.7 Thus, the 

Court found the following activities when performed by a CAM would constitute 

the unlicensed practice of law:

 completing BPR Form 33-032 (frequently asked questions and 

answers sheet);

 drafting a claim of lien, satisfaction of claim of lien, and notice of 

commencement form;

 determining the timing, method and form of giving notice of 

meetings;

 determining the votes necessary for certain actions which would entail 

interpretation of certain statutes and rules; and

 answering a community association’s question about the application 

of law to a matter being considered or advising a community association that 

a course of action may not be authorized by law, rule, or the association’s 

governing documents.

The Standing Committee and Court found that those activities that were 

 

6. Id. at 1123.

7. Id.
12

ministerial in nature and did not require significant legal expertise and 

interpretation or legal sophistication or training did not constitute the practice of 

law.8 The Court found that the following activities when performed by a CAM 

would not constitute the unlicensed practice of law:

 completion of two Secretary of State forms (change of registered 

agent or office for corporations, and annual corporation report),

 drafting certificates of assessments,

 drafting first and second notices of date of election,

 drafting ballots,

 drafting written notices of annual or board meetings,

 drafting annual meeting or board meeting agendas, and

 drafting affidavits of mailing.

The Standing Committee and Court found that other activities existed in a 

more grey area and whether or not they constituted the unlicensed practice of law 

would depend on the specific factual circumstances.9 The Court found the 

following activities to be dependent on the specific circumstances:

 modification of limited proxy forms promulgated by the state

 

8. Id.

9. Id. at 1122.
13

 drafting a limited proxy form, and

 drafting documents required to exercise the community association’s 

right of approval or right of first refusal on the sale or lease of a parcel

The Court found that modification of limited proxy forms promulgated by 

the State that involved ministerial matters could be performed by a CAM.10 The 

Court found the following modifications to be ministerial matters:

 modifying the form to include the name of the community association;

 phrasing a yes or no voting question concerning either waiving 

reserves or waiving the compiled, reviewed, or audited financial statement 

requirement;

 phrasing a yes or no voting question concerning carryover of excess 

membership expenses; and

 phrasing a yes or no voting question concerning the adoption of 

amendments to the Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws, or condominium 

documents.11

For more complicated modifications, the Court found that an attorney must 

be consulted.

 

10. Id. at 1124.

11. Id.
14

Regarding the drafting of a limited proxy form, the Court found that those 

items which were ministerial in nature, such as filling in the name and address of 

the owner, do not constitute the practice of law. But if drafting of an actual limited 

proxy form or questions in addition to those on the preprinted form is required, the 

CAM should consult with an attorney.12

The Court also found that the drafting of documents required to exercise a 

community association’s right of approval or first refusal to a sale or lease may 

require the assistance of an attorney, since there could be legal consequences to the 

decision.13 Although CAMS may be able to draft the documents, they cannot 

advise the association as to the legal consequences of taking a certain course of 

action.14

It is the opinion of the Standing Committee that no changes are needed to 

the 1996 opinion and those activities found to be the unlicensed practice of law 

continue to be the unlicensed practice of law and those activities that did not 

constitute the unlicensed practice of law are still not the unlicensed practice of law. 

However, the Standing Committee felt that in order to provide further guidance to 

CAMS and members of The Florida Bar, some of the 1996 activities which are part 

 

12. Id.

13. Id.

14. Id.
15

of the current request needed clarification. The Standing Committee also felt that 

activities that were not addressed in 1996 should be addressed using the 1996 

opinion as guidance. 

2012 Request

Petitioner’s request sets forth 14 activities. Each activity will be addressed.

1. Preparation of a Certificate of assessments due once the delinquent account 

is turned over to the association’s lawyer;

2. Preparation of a Certificate of assessments due once a foreclosure against 

the unit has commenced;

3. Preparation of Certificate of assessments due once a member disputes in 

writing to the association the amount alleged as owed;

In the 1996 opinion the Court found that the preparation of certificates of 

assessments were ministerial in nature and did not require legal sophistication or 

training. Therefore, it was not the unlicensed practice of law for a CAM to prepare 

certificates of assessments.

None of the oral or written testimony provided a compelling reason why 

these certificates of assessment would warrant different treatment from those 

previously addressed by the Court in the 1996 opinion. Thus, it is the opinion of 

the Standing Committee that a CAM’s preparation of these documents would not 

constitute the unlicensed practice of law.

4. Drafting of amendments (and certificates of amendment that are recorded 

in the official records) to declaration of covenants, bylaws, and articles of 

incorporation when such documents are to be voted upon by the members; 

In the 1996 opinion, the Court held that the drafting of documents which 
16

determine substantial rights is the practice of law. The governing documents set 

forth above determine substantial rights of both the community association and 

property owners. Consequently, under the 1996 opinion, the preparation of these 

documents constitutes the unlicensed practice of law. 

Further, in Florida Bar v. Town, 174 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 1965), the Court held 

that a nonlawyer may not prepare bylaws, articles of incorporation, and other 

documents necessary to the establishment of a corporation, or amendments to such 

documents. Amendments to a community association’s declaration of covenants, 

bylaws, and articles of incorporation can be analogized to the corporate documents 

discussed in Town. Therefore, it is the opinion of the Standing Committee that the 

Court’s holding in the 1996 opinion should stand and nonlawyer preparation of the 

amendments to the documents would constitute the unlicensed practice of law.

5. Determination of number of days to be provided for statutory notice; 

In the 1996 opinion, the Court found that determining the timing, method, 

and form of giving notices of meetings requires the interpretation of statutes, 

administrative rules, governing documents, and rules of civil procedure and that 

such interpretation constitutes the practice of law. Thus, if the determination of the 

number of days to be provided for statutory notice requires the interpretation of 

statutes, administrative rules, governing documents or rules of civil procedure, 

then, as found by the Court in 1996, it is the opinion of the Standing Committee 
17

that it would constitute the unlicensed practice of law for a CAM to engage in this 

activity. If this determination does not require such interpretation, then it would 

not be the unlicensed practice of law.

6. Modification of limited proxy forms promulgated by the State; 

In the 1996 opinion, the Court found that the modification of limited proxy 

forms that involved ministerial matters could be performed by a CAM, while more 

complicated modifications would have to be made by an attorney.15 The Court 

found the following to be ministerial matters: 

 modifying the form to include the name of the community association;

 phrasing a yes or no voting question concerning either waiving 

reserves or waiving the compiled, reviewed, or audited financial statement 

requirement;

 phrasing a yes or no voting question concerning carryover of excess 

membership expenses; and

 phrasing a yes or no voting question concerning the adoption of 

amendments to the Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws, or condominium 

documents.16

For more complicated modifications, the Court found that an attorney must 

 

15. Id.

16. Id.
18

be consulted. The 1996 opinion did not provide any examples of more 

complicated modifications which would require consultation with an attorney. The 

Standing Committee believes this activity requires further clarification by example. 

Using the examples given by the Court, the types of questions that can be 

modified without constituting the unlicensed practice of law do not require any 

discretion in the phrasing. For example, the sample form provided by the state has 

the following question: “Do you want to provide for less than full funding of 

reserves than is required by § 718.112(2)(f), Florida Statutes, for the next 

fiscal/calendar year? ________ YES _______ NO.” There is no discretion 

regarding the wording, it is a yes or no question. The question could be reworded 

as follows: “Section 718.112(2)(f), Florida Statutes, discusses funding of reserves. 

Do you want to provide for less than full funding of reserves than is required by 

the statute for the next fiscal/calendar year? ________ YES _______ NO.” It is 

still a yes or no question. As no discretion is involved, it does not constitute the 

unlicensed practice of law to modify the question.

On the other hand, if the question requires discretion in the phrasing or 

involves the interpretation of statute or legal documents, the CAM may not modify 

the form. After the above question regarding the reserves the form states “If yes, 

vote for one of the board proposed options below: (The option with the most votes 

will be the one implemented.) LIST OPTIONS HERE.” Listing the options would 
19

be a modification of the form. If what to include in the list requires discretion or 

an interpretation of statute, an attorney would have to be consulted regarding the 

language and the CAM could not make a change. For example, § 718.112(f) has 

language regarding when a developer may vote to waive the reserves. The statute 

discusses the timing of the waiver and under what circumstances it may occur. As 

a question regarding this waiver requires the interpretation of statute, a CAM could 

not modify the form by including this question without consulting with a member 

of The Florida Bar. As found in the 1996 opinion, making such a modification 

would constitute the unlicensed practice of law. 

7. Preparation of documents concerning the right of the association to 

approve new prospective owners; 

In the 1996 opinion, the Court found that drafting the documents required to 

exercise a community association’s right of approval or first refusal to a sale or 

lease may or may not constitute the unlicensed practice of law depending on the 

specific factual circumstances. It may require the assistance of an attorney, since 

there could be legal consequences to the decision. Although CAMs may be able to 

draft the documents, they cannot advise the association as to the legal 

consequences of taking a certain course of action. Thus, the specific factual 

circumstances will determine whether it constitutes the unlicensed practice of law 

for a CAM to engage in this activity.

This finding can also be applied to the preparation of documents concerning 
20

the right of the association to approve new prospective owners. While there was 

no testimony giving examples of such documents, the Court’s underlying principle

that if the preparation requires the exercise of discretion or the interpretation of 

statutes or legal documents, a CAM may not prepare the documents.17 For 

example, the association documents may contain provisions regarding the right of 

first refusal. Preparing a document regarding the approval of new owners may 

require an interpretation of this provision. An attorney should be consulted to 

ensure that the language comports with the association documents. On the other 

hand, the association documents may contain a provision regarding the size of pets 

an owner may have. Drafting a document regarding this would be ministerial in 

nature as an interpretation of the documents is generally not required. 

8. Determination of affirmative votes needed to pass a proposition or 

amendment to recorded documents;

9. Determination of owners’ votes needed to establish a quorum;

In the 1996 opinion, the Court found that determining the votes necessary to 

take certain actions – where the determination would require the interpretation and 

application both of condominium acts and of the community association’s 

governing documents – would constitute the practice of law. Thus, if these 

determinations require the interpretation and application of statutes and the 

community association’s governing documents, then it is the opinion of the 

 

17. Id. at 1123.
21

Standing Committee that it would constitute the unlicensed practice of law for a 

CAM to make these determinations. If these determinations do not require such 

interpretation and application, it is the opinion of the Standing Committee that they 

would not constitute the unlicensed practice of law.

10. Drafting of pre-arbitration demand letters required by 718.1255, Fla. 

Stat.; 

Under Section 718.1255, Fla. Stat., prior to filing an action in court, a party 

to a dispute must participate in nonbinding arbitration. The nonbinding arbitration 

is before the Division of Florida Condominiums, Time Shares, and Mobile Homes 

(hereinafter “the Division”). Prior to filing the petition for arbitration with the 

Division, the petitioner is required to serve a pre-arbitration demand letter on the 

respondent, providing:

1. advance written notice of the specific nature of the dispute, 

2. a demand for relief, and a reasonable opportunity to comply or to 

provide the relief, and 

3. notice of the intention to file an arbitration petition or other legal 

action in the absence of a resolution of the dispute. 

Failure to include the allegations or proof of compliance with these 

prerequisites requires the dismissal of the petition without prejudice. 

In the 1996 opinion, the Court found that if the preparation of a document 

requires the interpretation of statutes, administrative rules, governing documents, 
22

and rules of civil procedure, then the preparation of the documents constitutes the 

practice of law. It is the opinion of the Standing Committee that the preparation of 

a pre-arbitration demand letter would not require the interpretation of the abovereferenced statute. The statutory requirements appear to be ministerial in nature, 

and do not appear to require significant legal expertise and interpretation or legal 

sophistication or training. Consequently, the preparation of this letter would not 

satisfy the second prong of the Sperry test, which requires that the person 

providing the service possess legal skill and a knowledge of the law greater than 

that possessed by the average citizen. For these reasons, it is the opinion of the 

Standing Committee that the preparation of a pre-arbitration demand letter by a 

CAM would not constitute the unlicensed practice of law.

Moreover, an argument can be made that the activity, even if the practice of 

law, is authorized. As noted in the Petitioner’s March 28, 2012, letter, the Division 

has held that the statute does not require an attorney to draft the letter. (Formal 

Advisory Opinion request.) In Florida Bar v. Moses, 380 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 1980), 

the Court held that the legislature could oust the Supreme Court’s authority to 

protect the public and authorize a nonlawyer to practice law before administrative 

agencies. As the Division of Florida Condominiums, Time Shares, and Mobile 

Homes has held that a nonlawyer may prepare the letter, the activity is authorized 

and not the unlicensed practice of law. 
23

11. Preparation of construction lien documents (e.g. notice of commencement, 

and lien waivers, etc.); 

In the 1996 opinion, the Court found that the drafting of a notice of 

commencement form constitutes the practice of law because it requires a legal 

description of the property and this notice affects legal rights. Further, failure to 

complete or prepare this form accurately could result in serious legal and financial 

harm to the property owner.18

While the 1996 opinion did not specifically address the preparation of lien 

waivers, the 1996 opinion found that preparing documents that affect legal rights 

constitutes the practice of law. A lien waiver would certainly affect an 

association’s legal rights. Further, as suggested by one of the witnesses, the area of 

construction lien law is a very complicated and technical area. (Tr., p. 40, l. 10-

19.) Therefore, it is the Standing Committee’s opinion that the preparation of 

construction lien documents by a CAM would constitute the unlicensed practice of 

law.19

12. Preparation, review, drafting and/or substantial involvement in the 

preparation/execution of contracts, including construction contracts, 

 

18. Id. at 1123.

19. In re Advisory Opinion–Nonlawyer Preparation of Notice to Owner and 

Notice to Contractor, 544 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 1989), the Court held that it was not 

the unlicensed practice of law for nonlawyers to complete notice to owner and 

preliminary notice to contractor forms under the mechanic’s lien laws so those 

forms are not included in the current opinion.
24

management contracts, cable television contracts, etc.;

In the 1996 opinion, the Court found that the preparation of documents that 

established and affected the legal rights of the community association was the 

practice of law. Further, in Sperry, the Court found the preparation of legal 

instruments, including contracts, by which legal rights are either obtained, secured 

or given away, was the practice of law. Thus, it is the Standing Committee’s 

opinion that it constitutes the unlicensed practice of law for a CAM to prepare such 

contracts for the community association.

13. Identifying, through review of title instruments, the owners to receive prelien letters;

The testimony on this subject was mixed. Some witnesses felt that this 

activity was ministerial and would not be the unlicensed practice of law (written 

testimony of Jeffrey M. Oshinsky, Mark R. Benson, and R. L. Reimer), while 

others thought that this would constitute the unlicensed practice if performed by a 

CAM (written testimony of Nicholas F. Lang, Shawn G. Brown, and Emily L. 

Lang). However, none of the testimony defined what was meant by identifying the 

owners to receive pre-lien letters.

It is the opinion of the Standing Committee that if the CAM is only 

searching the public records to identify who has owned the property over the years, 

then such review of the public records is ministerial in nature and not the 

unlicensed practice of law. In other words, if the CAM is merely making a list of 
25

all record owners, the conduct is not the unlicensed practice of law.

On the other hand, if the CAM uses the list and then makes the legal 

determination of who needs to receive a pre-lien letter, this would constitute the 

unlicensed practice of law. This determination goes beyond merely identifying 

owners. It requires a legal analysis of who must receive pre-lien letters. Making 

this determination would constitute the unlicensed practice of law.

14. Any activity that requires statutory or case law analysis to reach a legal 

conclusion.

In the 1996 opinion, the Court found that it constituted the unlicensed 

practice of law for a CAM to respond to a community association’s questions 

concerning the application of law to specific matters being considered, or to advise 

community associations that a course of action may not be authorized by law or 

rule. The court found that this amounted to nonlawyers giving legal advice and 

answering specific legal questions, which the court specifically prohibited in In re: 

Joint Petition of The Florida Bar and Raymond James & Assoc., 215 So. 2d 613 

(Fla. 1968) and Sperry. 

Further, in Florida Bar v. Warren, 655 So. 2d 1131 (Fla. 1995), the Court 

held that it constitutes the unlicensed practice of law for a nonlawyer to advise 

persons of their rights, duties, and responsibilities under Florida or federal law and 

to construe and interpret the legal effect of Florida law and statutes for third 

parties. In Florida Bar v. Mills, 410 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 1982), the Court found that it 
26

constitutes the unlicensed practice of law for a nonlawyer to interpret case law and 

statutes for others. 

Thus, it is the Standing Committee’s opinion that it would constitute the 

unlicensed practice of law for a CAM to engage in activity requiring statutory or 

case law analysis to reach a legal conclusion.

CONCLUSION

The findings of the Court in Florida Bar re: Advisory Opinion–Activities of 

Community Association Managers, 681 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 1996) should not be 

disturbed and answer many of the questions posed by the Petitioner. Areas which 

required clarification have been clarified by way of example using the 1996 

opinion as guidance. Similarly, activities that were not addressed in 1996 are 

addressed using the 1996 opinion and other case law as guidance. This proposed 

advisory opinion is the Standing Committee on Unlicensed Practice of Law’s 

interpretation of the law.

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Nancy Blount by Jeffrey T. Picker

Nancy Munjiovi Blount, Chair

Standing Committee on 

Unlicensed Practice of Law

The Florida Bar

651 E. Jefferson Street

Tallahassee, FL 32399-2300

(850) 561-5840

Fla. Bar No. 332658

Primary Email: upl@flabar.org
27

/s/ Jeffrey T. Picker

Jeffrey T. Picker

Fla. Bar No. 12793

/s/ Lori S. Holcomb

Lori S. Holcomb

Fla. Bar No. 501018

The Florida Bar

651 East Jefferson Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2300

(850) 561-5840

Primary Email: jpicker@flabar.org 

Secondary Email: upl@flabar.org