Bill shields debt-collection attorneys from federal oversight and lawsuits
H.R. 3213 — Restoring Court Authority Over Litigation Act of 2025 · Filed by Scott Fitzgerald (R-WI) · 3 cosponsors · Introduced May 6, 2025 · Referred to committee
Your members of Congress
Enter a ZIP to see where your representative and both senators stood on this bill.
Looked up on this device — your ZIP is never stored on our servers.
What it does
This bill prohibits federal agencies from regulating attorneys engaged in litigation and bars opposing parties from suing attorneys in federal court for their litigation conduct. It reasserts state courts' exclusive authority over attorney discipline and professional conduct, and amends the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Consumer Financial Protection Act to exempt attorneys pursuing litigation from federal oversight.
Why we flagged it
The bill's operative mechanism is a dual immunity grant: it strips federal agencies of regulatory authority over attorney litigation conduct and eliminates federal private rights of action against attorneys. This is functionally a liability shield and regulatory carve-out for the legal profession, framed as a restoration of judicial authority.
What the text implies
- Eliminates federal private right of action against attorneys for litigation misconduct, leaving only state-court remedies which are slower, costlier, and require proving state-law violations rather than federal consumer-protection standards.
- Debt-collection attorneys pursuing litigation are now exempt from CFPB oversight and FDCPA enforcement, despite CFPB's 2023 policy statement requiring debt-collection attorneys to avoid abusive practices—the bill effectively nullifies that policy for litigation activities.
- State courts may lack resources or incentive to discipline attorneys aggressively in debt-collection cases; federal agencies (CFPB, FTC) previously provided parallel enforcement; removal of federal channel concentrates enforcement power in state disciplinary bodies.
- The bill's definition of 'litigation activities' is broad and includes 'any other activities engaged in as part of the practice of law'—this vagueness may shield conduct beyond courtroom pleadings from federal scrutiny.
Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.
Who it affects
Ordinary citizens lose federal remedies against attorneys for litigation misconduct and lose federal agency oversight of attorney debt-collection practices. While state courts retain disciplinary authority, the bill eliminates federal private rights of action and federal agency enforcement—reducing accountability mechanisms available to consumers harmed by aggressive litigation tactics, particularly in debt collection.
Who stands to gain
- debt-collection law firms
- attorneys engaged in creditor-side litigation
- legal services providers in consumer debt collection
Named in the bill
Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), Conference of Chief Justices, State supreme courts, Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010, Heintz v. Jenkins (514 U.S. 291, 1995)
Where it stands
3 cosponsors: 3 Republicans.
- May 6, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
- May 6, 2025 — Referred to House Committee on Financial Services and House Committee on the Judiciary · Congress.gov: “Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Financial Services, for a…”
Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.
Money around this bill
3 lobbying clients named this bill on 5 disclosure filings across 3 quarters, Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $410,000 in lobbying spend. A filing names 1 bills on average, so that figure is what each filing reported, not a share belonging to this bill.
More lobbying clients named this bill than 61% of bills with at least one filing.
Scott Fitzgerald, the sponsor, reported $897,000 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.
- American Bar Association — $210,000 on 1 filing
- National Creditors Bar Association — $150,000 on 3 filings
- National Creditors Bar Association — $50,000 on 1 filing
Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 21, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.
How this was measured
Analysis — Quorum's AI read the bill text published by Congress.gov (11,556 characters) on Sep 25, 2026. Section numbers in the findings refer to that text, linked below; transparency and hidden-provision scores are compared against the median of 14,975 analysed bills.
Status and sponsors — Congress.gov's bill record — actions, committee referrals and cosponsors — loaded nightly. The timeline shows status changes, not every procedural action.
Money — Senate Lobbying Disclosure Act filings whose specific-issue field names this bill for quarters ending Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. A filing's amount is reported whole beside the median number of bills a filing names; it is never divided across them. PAC receipts are FEC-reported contributions to the sponsor's candidate committee in the 2026 cycle.
As of — lobbying records through Jul 21, 2026 · page rendered 2026-09-25.
- H.R. 3213 on Congress.gov
- Actions and status history
- Cosponsors (3)
- Bill text the analysis read
- American Bar Association — LDA filing, 2026 Q2
- National Creditors Bar Association — LDA filing, 2025 Q4
- National Creditors Bar Association — LDA filing, 2026 Q2
- Scott Fitzgerald — FEC candidate receipts, 2026 cycle
“Bill shields debt-collection attorneys from federal oversight and lawsuits” QuorumCivic. https://share.quorumcivic.app/bill/119/hr3213 Report an error