H.R.3213 - Restoring Court Authority Over Litigation Act of 2025 (119th Congress)
Summary
H.R.3213, the Restoring Court Authority Over Litigation Act of 2025, aims to protect the authority of state and federal courts to regulate the legal profession. It seeks to prevent federal agencies from regulating licensed attorneys and law firms engaged in litigation activities. The bill also prohibits opposing parties in legal actions from bringing private rights of action against attorneys for their litigation activities.
The bill addresses concerns that federal agencies, such as the CFPB, are overstepping their bounds and creating conflicting rules for attorneys. It seeks to ensure that attorneys are primarily regulated by the courts and disciplinary agencies of the states in which they are licensed.
This legislation intends to clarify the roles of federal agencies and state courts in overseeing attorney conduct during litigation.
Expected Effects
The likely effect of this bill is to limit the regulatory power of federal agencies over attorneys' litigation activities. It would consolidate regulatory authority within state and federal courts. This could lead to fewer lawsuits against attorneys for technical violations and potentially lower malpractice insurance rates.
Furthermore, the bill could reduce the influence of federal agencies like the CFPB on attorney conduct in debt collection and other litigation contexts. It may also lead to a more uniform standard of conduct for attorneys, governed primarily by state and federal court rules.
Ultimately, the bill aims to protect attorneys from what some perceive as overreach by federal agencies, ensuring that the courts retain primary oversight.
Potential Benefits
- Reduced lawsuits against attorneys: By prohibiting private rights of action based on litigation activities, the bill could decrease the number of lawsuits against attorneys for technical violations.
- Lower malpractice insurance rates: A reduction in lawsuits could lead to lower malpractice insurance rates for attorneys.
- Clearer regulatory framework: Consolidating regulatory authority within state and federal courts could create a more consistent and predictable regulatory environment for attorneys.
- Protection of attorney-client relationship: By limiting federal agency interference, the bill could help preserve the traditional attorney-client relationship and ethical obligations.
- Support for state court authority: The bill reinforces the principle that state courts have primary authority over the regulation of attorneys practicing within their jurisdictions.
Most Benefited Areas:
Potential Disadvantages
- Potential for reduced consumer protection: Limiting federal agency oversight could reduce consumer protection in areas such as debt collection, where agencies like the CFPB have played a role in addressing abusive practices.
- Reduced accountability for attorney misconduct: By restricting private rights of action, the bill could make it more difficult for individuals to hold attorneys accountable for misconduct during litigation.
- Possible inconsistencies across states: Relying solely on state court regulation could lead to inconsistencies in the standards of conduct for attorneys across different states.
- Limited recourse for harmed parties: Individuals harmed by attorney misconduct in litigation may have fewer avenues for seeking redress.
- Potential for abuse: Without federal oversight, there is a risk that some attorneys may engage in unethical or improper litigation tactics without facing adequate consequences.
Most Disadvantaged Areas:
Constitutional Alignment
The bill's alignment with the US Constitution is complex. It touches upon the balance of power between the federal government and the states. The Tenth Amendment reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states, which could support the bill's aim to protect state court authority over attorney regulation.
However, Congress has the power to enact laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers vested in the federal government (Article I, Section 8). This could be argued as justification for federal agency regulation of attorneys in certain contexts, such as consumer protection.
Ultimately, the constitutionality of the bill would likely depend on a court's interpretation of the scope of federal power under the Necessary and Proper Clause and the extent to which federal regulation of attorneys infringes upon state authority.
Impact Assessment: Things You Care About ⓘ
This action has been evaluated across 19 key areas that matter to you. Scores range from 1 (highly disadvantageous) to 5 (highly beneficial).