No official summary available for this bill.
[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3213 Introduced in House (IH)]
<DOC>
119th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 3213
To protect State and Federal courts' primary and inherent authority to
regulate and oversee the legal profession by prohibiting Federal
agencies from regulating licensed attorneys and law firms engaged in
litigation activities, prohibiting opposing parties in legal actions
from bringing private rights of action against such attorneys and law
firms for their litigation activities, and for other purposes.
_______________________________________________________________________
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
May 6, 2025
Mr. Fitzgerald introduced the following bill; which was referred to the
Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on
Financial Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the
Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall
within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned
_______________________________________________________________________
A BILL
To protect State and Federal courts' primary and inherent authority to
regulate and oversee the legal profession by prohibiting Federal
agencies from regulating licensed attorneys and law firms engaged in
litigation activities, prohibiting opposing parties in legal actions
from bringing private rights of action against such attorneys and law
firms for their litigation activities, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Restoring Court Authority Over
Litigation Act of 2025''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS; SENSE OF CONGRESS.
(a) In General.--Congress finds the following:
(1) For many decades, attorneys engaged in the practice of
law have been regulated and disciplined primarily by the
highest court of the State in which the attorney is licensed or
admitted to practice, attorney disciplinary agencies overseen
by those courts, and other State and Federal courts of
competent jurisdiction pursuant to the applicable statutes,
rules of civil procedure, and rules of professional conduct and
disciplinary procedure duly adopted in those jurisdictions, and
not by Congress, Federal agencies, or private litigants.
(2) State supreme courts have promulgated and enforced
extensive and effective regulations governing all aspects of
the practice of law, including admission requirements, strict
attorney rules of professional conduct, disciplinary rules, and
litigation procedural rules. In addition, Federal courts have
adopted local rules governing the conduct of attorneys
appearing before them. As a result, State and Federal courts
have extensive authority and tools to address attorney
misconduct that occurs during the course of litigation before
them, including monetary sanctions, striking offending
pleadings or other papers, or referring the matter to
disciplinary authorities, which could lead to a reprimand,
censure, license suspension, disbarment, or other available
disciplinary sanctions.
(3) Consistent with the longstanding principle of judicial
regulation and oversight of attorneys and the legal profession,
numerous Federal agencies have included broad practice of law
exclusions in major rules, including the Federal Trade
Commission's ``Mortgage Assistance Relief Services'' Rule
issued in November 2010 and the Department of Housing and Urban
Development's ``Secure and Fair Enforcement for Mortgage
Licensing Act'' Rule issued in June 2011.
(4) Also consistent with the principle of judicial
regulation of attorneys and the legal profession, Congress has
generally declined to enact legislation regulating the practice
of law, including litigation activities of attorneys.
(5) Congress has also incorporated broad practice of law
exclusions into certain Federal statutes. For example, section
1027(e) of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010
excludes most attorneys engaged in the practice of law from the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's regulatory and
enforcement authority, while the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act of 1977 originally contained a complete exemption for
attorneys engaged in the practice of law.
(6) Although Congress removed the complete attorney
exemption from the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act in 1986
based in part on its belief that the revised Act would only
apply to attorneys' non-litigation collection activities and
that State courts would continue to regulate attorneys'
litigation activities, the United States Supreme Court held in
Heintz v. Jenkins, 514 U.S. 291 (1995), that attorneys could be
subject to the Act even when they are engaged in litigation
activities. As a result, many attorneys now are routinely sued
for litigation activities in State court that are alleged to be
technical violations of the Act, even when consumers suffer no
harm.
(7) In each of its annual reports to Congress on the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act from 1998 through 2006, the
Federal Trade Commission formally recommended that Congress
reexamine and amend the definition of ``debt collector'' in the
Act to exempt ``attorneys who pursue debtors solely through
litigation (or similar `legal' practices).''
(8) In recent years, the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau has also aggressively sought to regulate attorneys'
collection activities, including their litigation activities,
despite the broad practice of law exclusion in section 1027(e)
of the Consumer Financial Protection Act. The Bureau's
aggressive actions could also lead to other Federal agencies
adopting rules or practices regulating attorneys' litigation
activities in other types of court cases.
(9) These developments have undermined State and Federal
courts' primary and inherent authority to regulate and oversee
attorneys engaged in the practice of law by creating multiple
conflicting sets of rules and standards for attorneys,
resulting in unfair lawsuits against attorneys pursuing valid
legal claims for clients in court, increased attorney
malpractice insurance rates, difficulty in obtaining legal
representation, and reduced access to justice.
(10) On January 26, 2011, the Conference of Chief Justices
adopted Resolution 1 (``In Support of Preserving Traditional
State Court Regulation of Lawyers and Opposing Expanded Federal
Agency Regulation of Lawyers and the Practice of Law''),
affirming that primary regulation and oversight of attorneys
and the legal profession should continue to be vested in the
State courts, not Federal agencies or Congress, and that the
courts are in the best position to fulfill that important
function. The Resolution also expressed support for Congress
and Federal agencies' decisions to include broad practice of
law exclusions in certain Federal statutes and agency rules,
and opposition to Federal legislation or rules intended to
establish or expand the Federal regulatory jurisdiction of
attorneys engaged in the practice of law.
(11) While the activities constituting the practice of law
are determined by the State in which an attorney is licensed or
admitted to practice, litigation activities in connection with
a legal action in State or Federal court are considered to be
part of the practice of law in every State.
(12) To protect and restore State and Federal courts'
primary and inherent authority to regulate and oversee
attorneys and the legal profession, Federal legislation is
needed to clarify that--
(A) attorneys engaged in litigation should be
regulated and disciplined exclusively by State supreme
courts, their attorney disciplinary agencies, and other
State and Federal courts of competent jurisdiction;
(B) Federal agencies shall have no regulatory
authority over litigation activities of attorneys; and
(C) no party in a legal action shall have a Federal
private right of action against the opposing attorney
for the attorney's litigation activities.
(13) On February 5, 2020, the Conference of Chief Justices
also adopted a second Resolution 1, entitled ``In Support of
Preserving the Courts' Authority to Regulate and Oversee
Lawyers Engaged in Litigation and Opposing Federal Agency
Regulation of Lawyers' Litigation Activities'', which expressed
support for Federal legislation that would implement the three
proposed reforms described in paragraph (12).
(14) On April 12, 2023, the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau published its Statement of Policy Regarding Prohibition
on Abusive Acts or Practices that explains its interpretation
of those prohibitions contained in the Consumer Financial
Protection Act of 2010 and the actions that providers of
consumer financial products or services, including attorneys
engaged in debt collection, must take or avoid in order to
comply with the Act. However, by requiring attorneys
representing creditors in debt collection litigation to act in
the interests of consumers instead of the interests of their
own clients, and by requiring attorneys to take other steps
inconsistent with their ethical duties, the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau Statement of Policy directly conflicts with
the courts' well-established attorney rules of professional
conduct, attorney disciplinary rules, and litigation procedural
rules, thus further undermining the courts' primary and
inherent authority to regulate and oversee attorneys engaged in
the practice of law.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that attorneys
engaged in litigation activities should be regulated and disciplined
exclusively by the courts and other authorities of the State in which
the attorney is licensed or admitted to practice, attorney disciplinary
agencies overseen by those courts, and other State and Federal courts
of competent jurisdiction pursuant to the applicable statutes, rules of
civil procedure, and rules of professional conduct and disciplinary
procedure duly adopted in those jurisdictions.
SEC. 3. COURT AUTHORITY OVER ATTORNEYS ENGAGED IN LITIGATION
ACTIVITIES.
(a) In General.--Chapter 99 of title 28, United States Code, is
amended by inserting after section 1631 the following:
``Sec. 1632. Preservation of State and Federal courts' primary and
inherent authority to regulate and oversee attorneys
engaged in litigation activities
``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Federal agency.--The term `Federal agency' means an
agency as defined in section 551(1) of title 5.
``(2) Litigation activities.--The term `litigation
activities' means any actions by a licensed attorney or a law
firm in connection with a legal action in a court of law on
behalf of a client, including--
``(A) serving, filing, or conveying formal legal
pleadings, discovery requests, or other documents
pursuant to the applicable statute or rules of civil
procedure;
``(B) communicating in, or at the direction of, a
court of law (including in depositions or settlement
conferences) or in the enforcement of a judgment; and
``(C) any other activities engaged in as part of
the practice of law, under the laws of a State in which
the attorney is licensed or admitted to practice, that
relate to the legal action.
``(3) State.--The term `State' means the 50 States, the
District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa,
Guam, and the United States Virgin Islands.
``(b) Limitation on Federal Agency Authority.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of law, a Federal agency does not have any supervisory,
enforcement, or regulatory authority over litigation activities of
attorneys or law firms.
``(c) No Private Right of Action.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, a person may not bring a civil action in a court of
the United States seeking relief for harm arising out of alleged
misconduct related to the litigation activities of an opposing attorney
or law firm.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 99 of
title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item
related to section 1631 the following:
``1632. Preservation of State and Federal courts' primary and inherent
authority to regulate and oversee attorneys
engaged in litigation activities.''.
SEC. 4. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.
(a) Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.--Section 803(6) of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C. 1692a(6)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subparagraph (F) as subparagraph (G);
and
(2) by inserting after subparagraph (E) the following:
``(F) any licensed attorney or any law firm, to the
extent that such attorney or firm is engaged in
litigation activities (as such term is defined in
section 1632 of title 28, United States Code) to
collect a debt on behalf of a client; and''.
(b) Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010.--Section 1027(e) of
the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 5517(e)) is
amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4); and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
``(3) Rule of construction limitation with respect to debt
collection.--Paragraph (2) shall not apply to a licensed
attorney engaging in litigation activities to collect a debt on
behalf of a client if the attorney is excluded from the term
`debt collector' under section 803 of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act by reason of section 803(6)(F) of such Act.''.
<all>
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Financial Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Financial Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Llama 3.2 · runs locally in your browser
Ask anything about this bill. The AI reads the full text to answer.
Enter to send · Shift+Enter for new line