Overview

Title

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.

ELI5 AI

H.R. 7947 is a bill that wants to make sure only special state courts, and not other parts of the government, can tell lawyers what to do when they go to court. It also says people can't sue the other side's lawyer for what they do in court.

Summary AI

H.R. 7947 is designed to uphold the authority of state and federal courts over the legal profession by preventing federal agencies from regulating attorneys and law firms involved in litigation activities. The bill stipulates that these attorneys and law firms should only be regulated by state supreme courts, their disciplinary agencies, and competent courts. Additionally, the bill prohibits any party in a lawsuit from filing federal civil lawsuits against opposing attorneys for their litigation actions. This legislation also includes changes to existing laws such as the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Consumer Financial Protection Act, ensuring that litigation activities by attorneys are not subject to federal agency oversight or provisions allowing private actions.

Published

2024-04-11
Congress: 118
Session: 2
Chamber: HOUSE
Status: Introduced in House
Date: 2024-04-11
Package ID: BILLS-118hr7947ih

Bill Statistics

Size

Sections:
5
Words:
2,282
Pages:
11
Sentences:
35

Language

Nouns: 757
Verbs: 211
Adjectives: 146
Adverbs: 26
Numbers: 78
Entities: 154

Complexity

Average Token Length:
4.72
Average Sentence Length:
65.20
Token Entropy:
5.31
Readability (ARI):
37.19

AnalysisAI

General Summary of the Bill

The proposed bill, known as the "Restoring Court Authority Over Litigation Act of 2024," aims to reinforce the authority of State and Federal courts over the regulation of the legal profession, particularly regarding attorneys engaged in litigation activities. It seeks to reduce the influence of Federal agencies in regulating these legal professionals and their activities. The bill also proposes to prevent individuals from launching civil lawsuits against opposing attorneys due to alleged misconduct related to litigation activities.

Summary of Significant Issues

A notable issue within the bill is its restriction on Federal agencies from exercising regulatory authority over attorneys' litigation activities. This provision could lead to a reduction in consumer protections, as it might limit the oversight that ensures ethical conduct among legal practitioners involved in lawsuits. Additionally, the bill's elimination of private rights of action against attorneys for their litigation activities may raise concerns about accountability, leaving limited recourse for individuals who suffer from potential misconduct.

The bill introduces an exemption for attorneys from being classified as "debt collectors" under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, potentially creating a loophole regarding what constitutes litigation activities. The broad definition of litigation activities could lead to ambiguity and possible exploitation of the law.

Finally, the overlap between state and federal jurisdiction might create complexities, particularly where federal interests like consumer protection are implicated. This could result in legal uncertainties and challenges in the regulatory oversight of attorneys.

Impact on the Public

Broadly, this bill could simplify the regulatory environment for attorneys by streamlining oversight under state and federal courts, potentially reducing administrative burdens. However, the limitation on federal regulatory authority may weaken consumer protection measures. Individuals who face attorney misconduct during litigation may find themselves with fewer avenues for redress, potentially limiting their access to justice and accountability for legal malpractice.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

For attorneys and law firms, the bill presents a favorable environment by affirming state court regulation, thus minimizing federal oversight and associated compliance pressures. This could lead to reduced malpractice insurance rates and fewer legal challenges from opposing parties based on alleged technical violations during litigation.

On the other hand, consumers and plaintiffs in legal disputes might view the bill negatively. The restriction on private rights of action and potential loopholes in attorney conduct oversight could result in decreased protections against unscrupulous legal practices. Federal agencies concerned with consumer protection could also find their roles diminished, impacting their ability to enforce standards that safeguard individuals engaged in legal processes.

Overall, this bill presents a shift towards prioritizing state court jurisdiction in regulating legal practices during litigation, with implications that could favor legal professionals but pose challenges and risks for consumers relying on federal protections.

Issues

  • The bill significantly limits the regulatory authority of Federal agencies over the litigation activities of attorneys by defining and prohibiting such oversight in Section 3. This may be contentious given the potential impact on existing consumer protections and federal interests in regulating legal professionals.

  • The provision in Section 3(c) which eliminates private rights of action against attorneys for misconduct during litigation could raise substantial concerns about accountability and access to justice for individuals harmed by such conduct, potentially leaving inadequate recourse mechanisms if state regulations are insufficient.

  • Section 4 introduces a 'litigation activities' exclusion for attorneys under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, potentially creating a loophole if the definition of 'litigation activities' remains broad and unclear, which might enable attorneys to evade accountability under this Act.

  • The potential conflicts arising from overlapping state and federal jurisdiction as outlined in Section 3 and throughout the bill, where federal agencies may have interests, notably in consumer protection, could lead to legal ambiguities and challenges in enforcing attorney conduct standards.

  • The broad definition of 'litigation activities' in Section 3(a), including 'any other activities engaged in as part of the practice of law,' is vague and may lead to broad interpretations, potentially impacting regulatory clarity and enforcement consistency.

  • The bill's emphasis on state court authority over attorneys, highlighted in Sections 2 and 3, implicitly suggests a preference for reduced federal involvement without a balanced consideration of the potential benefits or need for such oversight from a consumer protection standpoint.

  • The statement in Section 3(b) restricting federal agency supervision could create conflicts with federal agencies that have overlapping interests or concurrent responsibilities, raising complex jurisdictional issues.

  • The amendments in Section 4 related to both the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Consumer Financial Protection Act involve legal and structural changes that, without consistent updates in related sections, could lead to confusion or inconsistent interpretation.

Sections

Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.

1. Short title Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The first section of the act provides the short title, allowing it to be referred to as the "Restoring Court Authority Over Litigation Act of 2024".

2. Findings Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

Congress reports that attorneys have traditionally been regulated by State courts rather than Federal agencies, but recent developments have disrupted this balance, leading to confusing regulations and unfair lawsuits. They propose legislation to ensure that only State courts have the authority to regulate attorneys, specifically in litigation activities, to restore clarity and fairness in legal regulation.

3. Court authority over attorneys engaged in litigation activities Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The proposed section clarifies that only state and federal courts, not federal agencies, have the authority to regulate attorneys' actions during legal cases. Additionally, it states that individuals cannot file lawsuits against opposing attorneys for alleged misconduct during litigation.

1632. Preservation of State and Federal courts’ primary and inherent authority to regulate and oversee attorneys engaged in litigation activities Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The section explains that courts at the state and federal level have the main authority to manage and regulate attorneys involved in legal proceedings. It states that federal agencies cannot oversee these legal activities, and individuals cannot sue in federal court over issues related to the conduct of opposing lawyers during litigation.

4. Conforming amendments Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The amendments specify that licensed attorneys or law firms engaged in litigation to collect debts are not considered debt collectors under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Additionally, under the Consumer Financial Protection Act, there is a clarification that a rule does not apply to attorneys if they are excluded under this new specification in the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.