I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7947 

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 

APRIL 11, 2024 

Mr. FITZGERALD (for himself, Mr. MOONEY, and Mr. BIGGS) 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. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 7947 IH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Restoring Court Au3 thority Over Litigation Act of 2024’’. 

4 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

5 Congress finds the following: 

6 (1) For many decades, attorneys engaged in the 

7 practice of law have been regulated and disciplined 

8 primarily by the highest court of the State in which 

9 the attorney is licensed or admitted to practice, at10 torney disciplinary agencies overseen by those 

11 courts, and other State and Federal courts of com12 petent jurisdiction pursuant to the applicable stat13 utes, rules of civil procedure, and rules of profes14 sional conduct and disciplinary procedure duly 

15 adopted in those jurisdictions, and not by Congress, 

16 Federal agencies, or private litigants. 

17 (2) State supreme courts have promulgated and 

18 enforced extensive and effective regulations gov19 erning all aspects of the practice of law, including 

20 admission requirements, strict attorney rules of pro21 fessional conduct, disciplinary rules, and litigation 

22 procedural rules. In addition, Federal courts have 

23 adopted local rules governing the conduct of attor24 neys appearing before them. As a result, State and 

25 Federal courts have extensive authority and tools to 

26 address attorney misconduct that occurs during the 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 7947 IH

1 course of litigation before them, including monetary 

2 sanctions, striking offending pleadings or other pa3 pers, or referring the matter to disciplinary authori4 ties, which could lead to a reprimand, censure, li5 cense suspension, disbarment, or other available dis6 ciplinary sanctions. 

7 (3) Consistent with the longstanding principle 

8 of judicial regulation and oversight of attorneys and 

9 the legal profession, numerous Federal agencies have 

10 included broad practice of law exclusions in major 

11 rules, including the Federal Trade Commission’s 

12 ‘‘Mortgage Assistance Relief Services’’ Rule issued 

13 in November 2010 and the Department of Housing 

14 and Urban Development’s ‘‘Secure and Fair En15 forcement for Mortgage Licensing Act’’ Rule issued 

16 in June 2011. 

17 (4) Also consistent with the principle of judicial 

18 regulation of attorneys and the legal profession, 

19 Congress has generally declined to enact legislation 

20 regulating the practice of law, including litigation 

21 activities of attorneys. 

22 (5) Congress has also incorporated broad prac23 tice of law exclusions into certain Federal statutes. 

24 For example, section 1027(e) of the Consumer Fi25 nancial Protection Act of 2010 excludes most attorVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:59 Apr 23, 2024 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H7947.IH H7947

kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
4 

•HR 7947 IH

1 neys engaged in the practice of law from the Con2 sumer Financial Protection Bureau’s regulatory and 

3 enforcement authority, while the Fair Debt Collec4 tion Practices Act of 1977 originally contained a 

5 complete exemption for attorneys engaged in the 

6 practice of law. 

7 (6) Although Congress removed the complete 

8 attorney exemption from the Fair Debt Collection 

9 Practices Act in 1986 based in part on its belief that 

10 the revised Act would only apply to attorneys’ non11 litigation collection activities and that State courts 

12 would continue to regulate attorneys’ litigation ac13 tivities, the United States Supreme Court held in 

14 Heintz v. Jenkins, 514 U.S. 291 (1995), that attor15 neys could be subject to the Act even when they are 

16 engaged in litigation activities. As a result, many at17 torneys now are routinely sued for litigation activi18 ties in State court that are alleged to be technical 

19 violations of the Act, even when consumers suffer no 

20 harm. 

21 (7) In each of its annual reports to Congress on 

22 the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act from 1998 

23 through 2006, the Federal Trade Commission for24 mally recommended that Congress reexamine and 

25 amend the definition of ‘‘debt collector’’ in the Act 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
5 

•HR 7947 IH

1 to exempt ‘‘attorneys who pursue debtors solely 

2 through litigation (or similar ‘legal’ practices).’’ 

3 (8) In recent years, the Consumer Financial 

4 Protection Bureau has also aggressively sought to 

5 regulate attorneys’ collection activities, including 

6 their litigation activities, despite the broad practice 

7 of law exclusion in section 1027(e) of the Consumer 

8 Financial Protection Act. The Bureau’s aggressive 

9 actions could also lead to other Federal agencies 

10 adopting rules or practices regulating attorneys’ liti11 gation activities in other types of court cases. 

12 (9) These developments have undermined State 

13 and Federal courts’ primary and inherent authority 

14 to regulate and oversee attorneys engaged in the 

15 practice of law by creating multiple conflicting sets 

16 of rules and standards for attorneys, resulting in un17 fair lawsuits against attorneys pursuing valid legal 

18 claims for clients in court, increased attorney mal19 practice insurance rates, difficulty in obtaining legal 

20 representation, and reduced access to justice. 

21 (10) On January 26, 2011, the Conference of 

22 Chief Justices adopted Resolution 1 (‘‘In Support of 

23 Preserving Traditional State Court Regulation of 

24 Lawyers and Opposing Expanded Federal Agency 

25 Regulation of Lawyers and the Practice of Law’’), 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
6 

•HR 7947 IH

1 affirming that primary regulation and oversight of 

2 attorneys and the legal profession should continue to 

3 be vested in the State courts, not Federal agencies 

4 or Congress, and that the courts are in the best po5 sition to fulfill that important function. The Resolu6 tion also expressed support for Congress and Fed7 eral agencies’ decisions to include broad practice of 

8 law exclusions in certain Federal statutes and agen9 cy rules, and opposition to Federal legislation or 

10 rules intended to establish or expand the Federal 

11 regulatory jurisdiction of attorneys engaged in the 

12 practice of law. 

13 (11) While the activities constituting the prac14 tice of law are determined by the State in which an 

15 attorney is licensed or admitted to practice, litiga16 tion activities in connection with a legal action in 

17 State or Federal court are considered to be part of 

18 the practice of law in every State. 

19 (12) To protect and restore State and Federal 

20 courts’ primary and inherent authority to regulate 

21 and oversee attorneys and the legal profession, Fed22 eral legislation is needed to clarify that— 

23 (A) attorneys engaged in litigation should 

24 be regulated and disciplined exclusively by State 

25 supreme courts, their attorney disciplinary 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
7 

•HR 7947 IH

1 agencies, and other State and Federal courts of 

2 competent jurisdiction; 

3 (B) Federal agencies shall have no regu4 latory authority over litigation activities of at5 torneys; and 

6 (C) no party in a legal action shall have a 

7 Federal private right of action against the op8 posing attorney for the attorney’s litigation ac9 tivities. 

10 (13) On February 5, 2020, the Conference of 

11 Chief Justices also adopted a second Resolution 1, 

12 entitled ‘‘In Support of Preserving the Courts’ Au13 thority to Regulate and Oversee Lawyers Engaged 

14 in Litigation and Opposing Federal Agency Regula15 tion of Lawyers’ Litigation Activities’’, which ex16 pressed support for Federal legislation that would 

17 implement the three proposed reforms described in 

18 paragraph (12). 

19 (14) On April 12, 2023, the Consumer Finan20 cial Protection Bureau published its Statement of 

21 Policy Regarding Prohibition on Abusive Acts or 

22 Practices that explains its interpretation of those 

23 prohibitions contained in the Consumer Financial 

24 Protection Act of 2010 and the actions that pro25 viders of consumer financial products or services, inVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:59 Apr 23, 2024 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H7947.IH H7947

kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
8 

•HR 7947 IH

1 cluding attorneys engaged in debt collection, must 

2 take or avoid in order to comply with the Act. How3 ever, by requiring attorneys representing creditors in 

4 debt collection litigation to act in the interests of 

5 consumers instead of the interests of their own cli6 ents, and by requiring attorneys to take other steps 

7 inconsistent with their ethical duties, the Consumer 

8 Financial Protection Bureau Statement of Policy di9 rectly conflicts with the courts’ well-established at10 torney rules of professional conduct, attorney dis11 ciplinary rules, and litigation procedural rules, thus 

12 further undermining the courts’ primary and inher13 ent authority to regulate and oversee attorneys en14 gaged in the practice of law. 

15 SEC. 3. COURT AUTHORITY OVER ATTORNEYS ENGAGED IN 

16 LITIGATION ACTIVITIES. 

17 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 99 of title 28, United 

18 States Code, is amended by inserting after section 1631 

19 the following: 

20 ‘‘§ 1632. Preservation of State and Federal courts’ pri21 mary and inherent authority to regulate 

22 and oversee attorneys engaged in litiga23 tion activities 

24 ‘‘(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
9 

•HR 7947 IH

1 ‘‘(1) FEDERAL AGENCY.—The term ‘Federal 

2 agency’ means an agency as defined in section 

3 551(1) of title 5. 

4 ‘‘(2) LITIGATION ACTIVITIES.—The term ‘litiga5 tion activities’ means any actions by a licensed attor6 ney or a law firm in connection with a legal action 

7 in a court of law on behalf of a client, including— 

8 ‘‘(A) serving, filing, or conveying formal 

9 legal pleadings, discovery requests, or other 

10 documents pursuant to the applicable statute or 

11 rules of civil procedure; 

12 ‘‘(B) communicating in, or at the direction 

13 of, a court of law (including in depositions or 

14 settlement conferences) or in the enforcement of 

15 a judgment; and 

16 ‘‘(C) any other activities engaged in as 

17 part of the practice of law, under the laws of 

18 a State in which the attorney is licensed or ad19 mitted to practice, that relate to the legal ac20 tion. 

21 ‘‘(3) STATE.—The term ‘State’ means the 50 

22 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth 

23 of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern 

24 Mariana Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the 

25 United States Virgin Islands. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
10 

•HR 7947 IH

1 ‘‘(b) LIMITATION ON FEDERAL AGENCY AUTHOR2 ITY.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a Fed3 eral agency does not have any supervisory, enforcement, 

4 or regulatory authority over litigation activities of attor5 neys or law firms. 

6 ‘‘(c) NO PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION.—Notwith7 standing any other provision of law, a person may not 

8 bring a civil action in a court of the United States seeking 

9 relief for harm arising out of alleged misconduct related 

10 to the litigation activities of an opposing attorney or law 

11 firm.’’. 

12 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

13 for chapter 99 of title 28, United States Code, is amended 

14 by inserting after the item related to section 1631 the fol15 lowing: 

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

16 SEC. 4. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS. 

17 (a) FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT.—Sec18 tion 803(6) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 

19 U.S.C. 1692a(6)) is amended— 

20 (1) by redesignating subparagraph (F) as sub21 paragraph (G); and 

22 (2) by inserting after subparagraph (E) the fol23 lowing: 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
11 

•HR 7947 IH

1 ‘‘(F) any licensed attorney or any law firm, 

2 to the extent that such attorney or firm is en3 gaged in litigation activities (as such term is 

4 defined in section 1632 of title 28, United 

5 States Code) to collect a debt on behalf of a cli6 ent; and’’. 

7 (b) CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION ACT OF

8 2010.—Section 1027(e) of the Consumer Financial Pro9 tection Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 5517(e)) is amended— 

10 (1) by redesignating paragraph (3) as para11 graph (4); and 

12 (2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the fol13 lowing: 

14 ‘‘(3) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION LIMITATION

15 WITH RESPECT TO DEBT COLLECTION.—Paragraph 

16 (2) shall not apply to a licensed attorney engaging 

17 in litigation activities to collect a debt on behalf of 

18 a client if the attorney is excluded from the term 

19 ‘debt collector’ under section 803 of the Fair Debt 

20 Collection Practices Act by reason of section 

21 803(6)(F) of such Act.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB