Texas House Bill HB1890

Texas 2011 - 82nd Regular

• Out of House Committee: 4/12/11
• Introduced: 2/28/11
• Refer: 3/7/11
• Refer: 3/21/11
• Report Pass: 4/6/11

Caption

Relating to voidability of contracts procured through barratry and civil liability arising from conduct constituting barratry.

Impact

The implementation of HB1890 is set to significantly affect both clients and legal practitioners within Texas. By providing a clear path for clients to seek redress against attorney misconduct, the bill aims to empower clients and deter attorneys from engaging in barratrous actions. Moreover, the financial implications for attorneys found in violation could be severe, as clients would be entitled to recover fees, damages, and reasonable attorney's fees from practitioners who commit barratry.

Summary

House Bill 1890 addresses the issue of barratry in Texas, specifically focusing on the voidability of contracts for legal services that are procured through unethical solicitation practices. The bill proposes amendments to the Government Code, allowing clients to void legal services contracts if they are obtained as a result of conduct that violates the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct related to barratry. This legislative measure seeks to enhance protection for individuals who may be subjected to unethical practices in the acquisition of legal representation.

Conclusion

Overall, HB1890 aims to establish a more ethical legal environment in Texas by explicitly addressing the issue of barratry. The bill not only enhances client protections but also underscores the importance of maintaining ethical standards among legal professionals. The changes laid out in this bill reflect a governmental effort to ensure accountability in legal practices, paving the way for fairer client-attorney relationships.

Contention

Although the bill appears to serve the public interest by addressing unethical solicitation, there may be concerns raised by legal professionals regarding the potential for abuse of these provisions. Critics might argue that plaintiffs could exploit the bill for opportunistic reasons, leading to frivolous lawsuits against attorneys. Furthermore, practitioners may worry about the implications of such stringent measures on their practice and their ability to receive fair compensation for services rendered under contested contracts.