Connecticut House Bill HB06649

Connecticut 2011 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/1/11
• Refer: 4/1/11
• Report Pass: 4/14/11
• Refer: 4/26/11
• Report Pass: 5/3/11

Caption

An Act Concerning A Model Litigant Policy For Attorneys Who Represent The State Government In Civil Actions.

Impact

Once enacted, HB 6649 will impact the methodology by which state attorneys approach civil litigation. The bill mandates that state representatives act as model litigants, promoting propriety and fairness in their conduct. This includes not only adhering to existing laws and professional ethical standards but also striving to minimize legal disputes where possible. By doing so, the legislation aims to enhance the handling of claims and disputes involving the state, ultimately leading to a more efficient resolution of civil matters involving the government and its constituents.

Summary

House Bill 6649 establishes a model litigant policy aimed at providing guidance for state attorneys representing the government in civil cases. The legislation is designed to ensure that the state and its agencies conduct themselves in a fair and principled manner during civil actions, emphasizing the importance of acting promptly, minimizing costs, and handling claims without unnecessary delays. This policy is intended to set a standard of conduct that encourages transparency and professionalism in the state's legal dealings, which may contribute to building trust in governmental processes.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB 6649 appears to be generally positive, particularly among legal professionals and advocates for improved governmental accountability. Proponents view the bill as a necessary step towards reforming the practices within state legal offices, aligning them more closely with modern ethical standards. However, some concerns may arise regarding the practical implications of enforcing this model litigant policy, especially how it may be received by those litigating against the state.

Contention

Despite the bill's positive intent, there may be points of contention regarding the balance it strikes between protecting state interests and ensuring accountability. Critics might argue that while the model policy promotes fair practices, it does not replace the necessity for rigorous checks on state conduct during litigation, nor does it address potential loopholes that could allow misconduct to continue. Additionally, there may be discussions about how effectively compliance with this policy can be monitored among numerous state agencies and attorneys, which could affect the overall impact of the bill.