Court Opinion

ID: 9568043
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:00:14.149303+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:24:17.543989
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE WHITING,
dissenting.
Although I agree with much of the majority opinion, I cannot agree with its conclusion.
I agree with the majority: (1) that this case can be decided by applying the plain meaning of the statutes involved; (2) that, with certain listed exceptions, Code § 2.1-121 prohibits the Governor from appointing “regular counsel” for the Virginia Retirement System (the agency); and (3) that Code § 2.1-122(a) authorizes the Governor to employ “special counsel” for a state agency upon issuing the required exemption order. However, I disagree with the conclusion that counsel who, in the majority’s words, provide[s] “comprehensive legal representation” to a state agency is “special counsel” within the meaning of Code § 2.1-121(a).
*128Since the statute is clear and unambiguous, I would apply its plain meaning and intent. Frazier v. City of Norfolk, 234 Va. 388, 391-92, 362 S.E.2d 688, 690 (1987). The adjective “special” is defined in pertinent part as “confined to a definite field of action: designed or selected for a particular purpose, occasion, or other end: limited in range.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 2186 (1986). Applying the plain meaning of the adjective “special,” I conclude that counsel who provides “comprehensive legal representation” to the agency cannot be deemed “selected for a particular purpose, occasion or other end.”
And this plain meaning is consistent with the context of other statutory language. The statute requires that “[a]ll legal service in civil matters for the Commonwealth [and every state agency] shall be rendered and performed by the Attorney General.” Code § 2.1-121. The relevant exceptions focus on specific instances when the Attorney General could not or should not act, such as when (1) the Governor certifies that the Attorney General is unable to act “because of the nature of the service to be performed,” Code § 2.1-122(a) (emphasis added); (2) it is impractical or uneconomical for the Attorney General’s office to render legal services, Code § 2.1-122(b) and -122(c); and (3) the Attorney General certifies an inability to render “certain legal services” due to a conflict of interests or an inability to render such services.
In my opinion, these exceptions confine special counsel’s representation to discrete and limited areas. Indeed, as the majority points out, the exception relied on requires that “[t]he scope of the appointment of special counsel must, however, be limited by objective parameters specified within the Governor’s exemption order.” Therefore, I conclude that the exceptions authorize the Governor and the Attorney General to employ special counsel only in particular legal matters or cases in which the Attorney General could or should not act.
On the other hand, the majority defines “special counsel” as one who is independent of the Attorney General and serves for a limited period. I agree that if, “because of the nature of the service to be rendered,” the Governor certifies the Attorney General’s inability to act, special counsel would be independent of the Attorney General in the discrete area of his or her representation. However, the independence of special counsel does not address the “limited range” of that representation.
Further, I do not think that fixing a limited period for the employment of the appointee transforms that “regular” or “general” counsel into “special” counsel, as the majority holds.
*129For all these reasons, I would hold that the Governor exceeded the scope of the authority vested in him by Code § 2.1-122(a). Because of this conclusion, I address the Governor’s other assignments of error.
I find no merit in the Governor’s contention that § 4-5.04(a)(l) of the Appropriations Act* vests him with authority independent of Code § 2.1-122(a) to replace the Attorney General as regular counsel for the agency. In my opinion, this section of the Appropriations Act merely (1) defines the relationship of the special counsel to the Office of the Attorney General, and (2) designates the sources for payment of special counsel appointed by the Governor under the provisions of Code § 2.1-122(a). I do not think that the Appropriations Act provides an authorization separate from Code § 2.1-122(a), as the Governor contends.
Finally, I think that the trial court erred in permitting a witness to state his understanding of some of the statutes involved. See Funkhouser v. Spahr, 102 Va. 306, 311-12, 46 S.E. 378, 380 (1904) (constitutional convention members’ understanding of particular constitutional provision not proper consideration). However, I would conclude that the Governor was not prejudiced because (1) the statute is not ambiguous and needs no interpretation, Frazier, 234 Va. at 391-92, 362 S.E.2d at 690, and (2) the trial court did not make this testimony the basis of its conclusion. It merely noted that the testimony confirmed its conclusions.
For all these reasons, I would affirm the judgment in this case.

 The Appropriations Act contains the following proviso to the general requirement that the Attorney General appoint all special counsel. It reads as follows:
[I]f the Governor certifies the need for independent legal counsel for any Executive Department agency, such agency shall be free to act independently of the Office of the Attorney General, in regard to selection, and provided, further, that compensation of such independent legal counsel shall be paid from the monies appropriated to such Executive Department agency or from the monies appropriated to the Office of the Attorney General.
Acts 1992, ch. 893, § 4-5.04(a)(l) at 1987.