## Facts

- The Attorney General of Tennessee and the State Board of Equalization sought a judicial determination on the constitutionality of Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-5-1514 (1994), which permits certain non-attorneys to represent taxpayers contesting property assessments before state and local boards of equalization.
- Historically in Tennessee, appraisers and other non-attorney agents commonly appeared for taxpayers in board of equalization proceedings.
- In 1987, the Attorney General issued opinions concluding such nonlawyer appearances constituted unauthorized practice of law.
- In 1988, the General Assembly enacted legislation (later codified as § 67-5-1514) expressly permitting taxpayer representation before boards of equalization by: (1) immediate family members, (2) corporate officers, directors, or employees, and (3) registered property appraisers meeting statutory criteria.
- The Supreme Court concluded the dispute required an evidentiary record and appointed a Special Master, who held a hearing and reported findings upholding the statute’s constitutionality.
- After briefing and argument on the report, the Supreme Court adopted the Special Master’s factual findings and affirmed the legal conclusions as modified.

## Issues

1. Whether Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-5-1514 unconstitutionally infringes the Tennessee Supreme Court’s inherent authority to regulate the practice of law, in violation of separation of powers.
2. Whether non-attorney representation of taxpayers before boards of equalization under the statute constitutes the practice of law such that the legislature lacks authority to authorize it.

## Decision

- The court upheld Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-5-1514 as constitutional.
- The court adopted and affirmed the Special Master’s findings of fact.
- The court affirmed the Special Master’s conclusions of law as modified to clarify that ultimate authority to define and regulate the practice of law remains with the judiciary.
- The court concluded that the statute’s limited authorization of non-attorney representation in board of equalization proceedings did not amount to an unconstitutional legislative encroachment.

## Legal Principles

- The Tennessee Supreme Court has inherent constitutional authority to define, regulate, and control the practice of law, including preventing unauthorized practice.
- The legislature may structure administrative adjudicatory processes and permit limited nonlawyer representation in specialized, informal administrative forums without violating separation of powers, so long as judicial authority over defining the practice of law is not displaced.
- In assessing whether legislative authorization intrudes on judicial power, the court considers the nature of the forum and proceedings (including formality and specialization), historical practice, and how narrowly the class of permitted nonlawyer representatives is defined.
- A statute authorizing nonlawyer representation is more likely to be valid where representation is confined to persons with a close connection to the party (family members or corporate insiders) or specialized competence directly tied to the subject matter (registered property appraisers).

## Conclusion

The Tennessee Supreme Court held that § 67-5-1514 permissibly allows narrowly defined non-attorneys to represent taxpayers in specialized, informal property tax assessment hearings before boards of equalization, and that this limited authorization does not violate separation of powers because the judiciary retains final authority over what constitutes the practice of law.


Petition of Burson, 909 S.W.2d 768 (Tenn. 1995)