Relating to the award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs in connection with certain contested cases.
Summary
HB 5050 would change Texas administrative procedure law to require, in certain contested cases that are later reviewed by a court, that a reviewing court award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to a prevailing nongovernmental party. The bill creates an exception when the state agency is acting only as a neutral arbiter between private parties, or when the agency’s role as a party has been eliminated by a later change in law.
The bill also amends the existing attorney-fee provision for contested cases involving regulatory action. It changes the current discretionary fee award to a mandatory one in qualifying cases, and it removes the word “frivolous” from the title and operative language while keeping the requirement that the person prevail and that there be a final determination that the agency’s action was frivolous, in bad faith, unauthorized, or beyond the agency’s authority. The fee award under this section remains capped at $1 million and applies only when there is no judicial review of the administrative decision.
Impact
HB 5050 would affect Chapter 2001 of the Texas Government Code, which governs contested case procedures under the Administrative Procedure Act. It would expand the circumstances under which private parties can recover attorney’s fees and costs from state agencies, increasing potential financial exposure for agencies in administrative disputes and judicial review proceedings. The bill would apply prospectively only to actions commenced on or after September 1, 2025.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and its procedural history, the measure appears aimed at strengthening remedies for nongovernmental parties who successfully challenge agency action and at discouraging unsupported or unauthorized regulatory actions. There is no recorded committee debate or vote history in the provided materials, so no direct evidence of support or opposition is available from transcripts. The referral to the Delivery of Government Efficiency committee suggests the bill was treated as an administrative-government reform measure.
Contention
The main points of contention are likely to be the mandatory fee-shifting requirement and the circumstances under which a state agency must pay attorney’s fees. Agencies may object to being required to pay prevailing private parties’ fees, especially where they act in a quasi-judicial role or where their authority changes due to later legislation. Another likely issue is the $1 million cap and the standards for finding an action frivolous, in bad faith, or unauthorized, which could be viewed either as necessary accountability for agencies or as an expansion of litigation risk against the state.
Criminal Proceedings; the award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs in a criminal case to the defendant upon such defendant making a successful motion to disqualify the prosecuting attorney for misconduct in connection with the case; provide
A bill for an act relating to awarding costs and reasonable attorney fees to a prevailing party in a civil action and including effective date and applicability provisions.