course of litigation before them, including monetary 
sanctions, striking offending pleadings or other pa-
pers, or referring the matter to disciplinary authori-
ties, which could lead to a reprimand, censure, li-
cense suspension, disbarment, or other available dis-
ciplinary sanctions. 
(3) Consistent with the longstanding principle 
of judicial regulation and oversight of attorneys and 
the legal profession, numerous Federal agencies have 
included broad practice of law exclusions in major 
rules, including the Federal Trade Commission’s 
‘‘Mortgage Assistance Relief Services’’ Rule issued 
in November 2010 and the Department of Housing 
and Urban Development’s ‘‘Secure and Fair En-
forcement for Mortgage Licensing Act’’ Rule issued 
in June 2011. 
(4) Also consistent with the principle of judicial 
regulation of attorneys and the legal profession, 
Congress has generally declined to enact legislation 
regulating the practice of law, including litigation 
activities of attorneys. 
(5) Congress has also incorporated broad prac-
tice of law exclusions into certain Federal statutes. 
For example, section 1027(e) of the Consumer Fi-
nancial Protection Act of 2010 excludes most attor-
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
00:15 Dec 07, 2022
Jkt 039200
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H9393.IH
H9393
kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
neys engaged in the practice of law from the Con-
sumer Financial Protection Bureau’s regulatory and 
enforcement authority, while the Fair Debt Collec-
tion Practices Act of 1977 originally contained a 
complete exemption for attorneys engaged in the 
practice of law. 
(6) Although Congress removed the complete 
attorney exemption from the Fair Debt Collection 
Practices Act in 1986 based in part on its belief that 
the revised Act would only apply to attorneys’ non- 
litigation collection activities and that State courts 
would continue to regulate attorneys’ litigation ac-
tivities, the United States Supreme Court held in 
Heintz v. Jenkins, 514 U.S. 291 (1995), that attor-
neys could be subject to the Act even when they are 
engaged in litigation activities. As a result, many at-
torneys now are routinely sued for litigation activi-
ties in State court that are alleged to be technical 
violations of the Act, even when consumers suffer no 
harm. 
(7) In each of its annual reports to Congress on 
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act from 1998 
through 2006, the Federal Trade Commission for-
mally recommended that Congress reexamine and 
amend the definition of ‘‘debt collector’’ in the Act 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
00:15 Dec 07, 2022
Jkt 039200
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H9393.IH
H9393
kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
to exempt ‘‘attorneys who pursue debtors solely 
through litigation (or similar ‘legal’ practices).’’ 
(8) In recent years, the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau has also aggressively sought to 
regulate attorneys’ collection activities, including 
their litigation activities, despite the broad practice 
of law exclusion in section 1027(e) of the Consumer 
Financial Protection Act. The Bureau’s aggressive 
actions could also lead to other Federal agencies 
adopting rules or practices regulating attorneys’ liti-
gation activities in other types of court cases. 
(9) These developments have undermined State 
and Federal courts’ primary and inherent authority 
to regulate and oversee attorneys engaged in the 
practice of law by creating multiple conflicting sets 
of rules and standards for attorneys, resulting in un-
fair lawsuits against attorneys pursuing valid legal 
claims for clients in court, increased attorney mal-
practice insurance rates, difficulty in obtaining legal 
representation, and reduced access to justice. 
(10) On January 26, 2011, the Conference of 
Chief Justices adopted Resolution 1 (‘‘In Support of 
Preserving Traditional State Court Regulation of 
Lawyers and Opposing Expanded Federal Agency 
Regulation of Lawyers and the Practice of Law’’), 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
00:15 Dec 07, 2022
Jkt 039200
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H9393.IH
H9393
kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
affirming that primary regulation and oversight of 
attorneys and the legal profession should continue to 
be vested in the State courts, not Federal agencies 
or Congress, and that the courts are in the best po-
sition to fulfill that important function. The Resolu-
tion also expressed support for Congress and Fed-
eral agencies’ decisions to include broad practice of 
law exclusions in certain Federal statutes and agen-
cy rules, and opposition to Federal legislation or 
rules intended to establish or expand the Federal 
regulatory jurisdiction of attorneys engaged in the 
practice of law. 
(11) While the activities constituting the prac-
tice of law are determined by the State in which an 
attorney is licensed or admitted to practice, litiga-
tion activities in connection with a legal action in 
State or Federal court are considered to be part of 
the practice of law in every State. 
(12) To protect and restore State and Federal 
courts’ primary and inherent authority to regulate 
and oversee attorneys and the legal profession, Fed-
eral legislation is needed to clarify that— 
(A) attorneys engaged in litigation should 
be regulated and disciplined exclusively by State 
supreme courts, their attorney disciplinary 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
00:15 Dec 07, 2022
Jkt 039200
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H9393.IH
H9393
kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
agencies, and other State and Federal courts of 
competent jurisdiction; 
(B) Federal agencies shall have no regu-
latory authority over litigation activities of at-
torneys; and 
(C) no party in a legal action shall have a 
Federal private right of action against the op-
posing attorney for the attorney’s litigation ac-
tivities. 
(13) On February 5, 2020, the Conference of 
Chief Justices also adopted a second Resolution 1, 
entitled ‘‘In Support of Preserving the Courts’ Au-
thority to Regulate and Oversee Lawyers Engaged 
in Litigation and Opposing Federal Agency Regula-
tion of Lawyers’ Litigation Activities’’, which ex-
pressed support for Federal legislation that would 
implement the three proposed reforms described in 
paragraph (12). 
(b) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Con-
gress that attorneys engaged in litigation activities should 
be regulated and disciplined exclusively by the courts and 
other authorities of the State in which the attorney is li-
censed or admitted to practice, attorney disciplinary agen-
cies overseen by those courts, and other State and Federal 
courts of competent jurisdiction pursuant to the applicable 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
00:15 Dec 07, 2022
Jkt 039200
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H9393.IH
H9393
kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
statutes, rules of civil procedure, and rules of professional 
conduct and disciplinary procedure duly adopted in those 
jurisdictions. 
SEC. 3. COURT AUTHORITY OVER ATTORNEYS ENGAGED IN 
LITIGATION ACTIVITIES. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 99 of title 28, United 
States Code, is amended by inserting after section 1631 
the following: 
‘‘§ 1632. Preservation of State and Federal courts’ pri-
mary and inherent authority to regulate 
and oversee attorneys engaged in litiga-
tion activities 
‘‘(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 
‘‘(1) FEDERAL
AGENCY.—The term ‘Federal 
agency’ means an agency as defined in section 
551(1) of title 5. 
‘‘(2) LITIGATION ACTIVITIES.—The term ‘litiga-
tion activities’ means any actions by a licensed attor-
ney or a law firm in connection with a legal action 
in a court of law on behalf of a client, including— 
‘‘(A) serving, filing, or conveying formal 
legal pleadings, discovery requests, or other 
documents pursuant to the applicable statute or 
rules of civil procedure; 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
00:15 Dec 07, 2022
Jkt 039200
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H9393.IH
H9393
kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
‘‘(B) communicating in, or at the direction 
of, a court of law (including in depositions or 
settlement conferences) or in the enforcement of 
a judgment; and 
‘‘(C) any other activities engaged in as 
part of the practice of law, under the laws of 
a State in which the attorney is licensed or ad-
mitted to practice, that relate to the legal ac-
tion. 
‘‘(3) STATE.—The term ‘State’ means the 50 
States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth 
of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern 
Mariana Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the 
United States Virgin Islands. 
‘‘(b) LIMITATION ON FEDERAL AGENCY AUTHOR-
ITY.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a Fed-
eral agency does not have any supervisory, enforcement, 
or regulatory authority over litigation activities of attor-
neys or law firms. 
‘‘(c) NO PRIVATE RIGHT
OF ACTION.—Notwith-
standing any other provision of law, a person may not 
bring a civil action in a court of the United States seeking 
relief for harm arising out of alleged misconduct related 
to the litigation activities of an opposing attorney or law 
firm.’’. 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
00:15 Dec 07, 2022
Jkt 039200
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H9393.IH
H9393
kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 
for chapter 99 of title 28, United States Code, is amended 
by inserting after the item related to section 1631 the fol-
lowing: 
‘‘1632. Preservation of State and Federal courts’ primary and inherent author-
ity to regulate and oversee attorneys engaged in litigation ac-
tivities.’’. 
SEC. 4. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS. 
(a) FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT.—Sec-
tion 803(6) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 
U.S.C. 1692a(6)) is amended— 
(1) by redesignating subparagraph (F) as sub-
paragraph (G); and 
(2) by inserting after subparagraph (E) the fol-
lowing: 
‘‘(F) any licensed attorney or any law firm, 
to the extent that such attorney or firm is en-
gaged in litigation activities (as such term is 
defined in section 1632 of title 28, United 
States Code) to collect a debt on behalf of a cli-
ent; and’’. 
(b) CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION ACT
OF 
2010.—Section 1027(e) of the Consumer Financial Pro-
tection Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 5517(e)) is amended— 
(1) by redesignating paragraph (3) as para-
graph (4); and 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
00:15 Dec 07, 2022
Jkt 039200
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H9393.IH
H9393
kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
(2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the fol-
lowing: 
‘‘(3) RULE
OF
CONSTRUCTION
LIMITATION 
WITH RESPECT TO DEBT COLLECTION.—Paragraph 
(2) shall not apply to a licensed attorney engaging 
in litigation activities to collect a debt on behalf of 
a client if the attorney is excluded from the term 
‘debt collector’ under section 803 of the Fair Debt 
Collection Practices Act by reason of section 
803(6)(F) of such Act.’’. 
Æ 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
00:15 Dec 07, 2022
Jkt 039200
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6301
E:\BILLS\H9393.IH
H9393
kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS