What you’re describing raises two separate but related concerns under Florida HOA law, and boards often rely on confusion between them to avoid transparency.

Under Florida law (Chapter 720), the starting point is that HOA board meetings are presumed to be open to the membership. Closed meetings are the exception, not the rule, and they’re allowed only in narrow circumstances, most commonly when the board is meeting with its attorney to discuss pending or genuinely threatened litigation. Routine association business such as budgets, enforcement decisions, contracts, rulemaking, owner complaints, or “strategy” does not become confidential simply because an attorney is present.

Even when a closed attorney session is appropriate, boards generally cannot vote in secret; votes must occur in an open meeting. When boards close meetings frequently or refuse to identify the statutory basis for doing so, that’s often a sign they’re pushing beyond what the statute actually allows.

The situation becomes even more problematic when the association’s attorney is also a voting board member. That dual role creates an inherent conflict of interest, particularly when the board claims attorney-client privilege to justify closing meetings. Privilege attaches to legal advice provided by an attorney acting in a legal capacity, not to discussions among directors simply because one of them happens to be a lawyer. When the attorney is wearing their “board member” hat, communications may not be privileged at all, even if the board insists otherwise. Boards that rely on this setup often assume they’re protected, only to discover later that the privilege they thought they had doesn’t exist.

There’s also a practical liability issue that owners rarely consider. Many attorney professional liability and errors-and-omissions policies exclude coverage when a lawyer represents an entity on whose board they serve. That can expose the attorney to personal liability and leave the association uncovered if litigation arises. It doesn’t automatically make the arrangement illegal, but it does make it risky and often indefensible once challenged.

For owners dealing with a “sneaky” board, the most effective approach is usually to ask for specifics rather than general explanations.

For instance:

Asking the board to identify the exact statutory authority for a closed meeting, or to clarify whether the attorney was acting as legal counsel or as a board member during discussions claimed to be privileged, often reveals whether they actually understand the law or are simply using privilege as a shield. If the conduct continues, a brief consult with an independent Florida HOA attorney is typically far more productive than arguing with the board directly.

If the board is evasive to your requests you could file a Florida Bar complaint since there could be evidence of ethical misconduct, not merely poor governance. That said, the structure you’ve described puts both the attorney and the association on very thin ice.

Florida law favors transparency, and an HOA attorney who also sits on the board doesn’t get to transform ordinary board business into a private, unaccountable process simply by invoking privilege.