Restoring Court Authority Over Litigation Act of 2025
Summary
HB3213, the “Restoring Court Authority Over Litigation Act of 2025,” would bar federal agencies from regulating attorneys and law firms when they are engaged in “litigation activities,” and would also prohibit private civil lawsuits in federal court against opposing attorneys or law firms based on those litigation activities. The bill frames this as a restoration of the traditional role of state supreme courts, state disciplinary authorities, and courts of competent jurisdiction in regulating the legal profession.
The bill defines litigation activities broadly to include filing and serving pleadings and discovery, court communications, depositions, settlement conferences, enforcement of judgments, and other conduct that is part of the practice of law under state law. It also makes conforming amendments to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Consumer Financial Protection Act so that attorneys engaged in debt-collection litigation are excluded from certain federal regulatory coverage when acting in that capacity. In effect, the bill would create a statutory shield for attorneys and law firms from federal agency oversight and from federal private-right-of-action claims tied to their litigation conduct.
Impact
If enacted, the bill would amend title 28 of the U.S. Code to add a new section expressly limiting federal agency supervisory, enforcement, and regulatory authority over attorneys’ litigation activities, while also eliminating federal civil actions seeking relief for alleged misconduct arising from those activities. It would further narrow the reach of the FDCPA and the Consumer Financial Protection Act as applied to attorneys litigating debt-collection matters, reinforcing a litigation-specific exemption for licensed lawyers and law firms. The practical effect would be to shift oversight of attorney conduct in litigation more firmly to state courts and existing court disciplinary systems, while reducing federal regulatory and litigation exposure for attorneys and firms.
Sentiment
The bill’s stated purpose and findings reflect strong support for preserving state court control over the legal profession, and the available context shows no recorded committee debate or votes to indicate organized opposition or support in the legislative record provided. The measure appears to be framed as a response to perceived overreach by federal agencies, especially in the debt-collection context, and as a protection for attorneys’ ability to represent clients without conflicting federal standards. Overall, the bill’s tone is protective of the legal profession and skeptical of federal agency involvement.
Contention
The main point of contention is whether federal agencies, particularly the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, should have any role in regulating attorneys when they are litigating on behalf of clients. Supporters of the bill argue that state courts already have primary authority and that federal regulation creates conflicting standards, higher malpractice costs, and reduced access to counsel. Critics would likely focus on the bill’s broad litigation exemption and the elimination of private federal remedies, especially in debt-collection cases, because those changes could limit consumer protections and reduce accountability for attorney misconduct. No specific committee objections or recorded vote splits are provided in the materials.
Relating to selection of an attorney by an indigent parent as attorney ad litem for the parent in certain suits affecting the parent-child relationship.