Texas 2011 - 82nd Regular

Texas House Bill HB2919

Voted on by House
 
Out of Senate Committee
 
Voted on by Senate
 
Governor Action
 
Bill Becomes Law
 

Caption

Relating to state bar rules adopted or amended by the supreme court.

Impact

The legislation is expected to impact the governance of the state bar and improve the overall accountability of the supreme court's rule-making processes. By requiring public notifications and comment periods, this bill proposes to create a more inclusive framework for legal regulations that affect Texas residents. The changes will foster a more participatory approach in legal amendments, allowing practitioners, as well as the general public, to influence legislative outcomes that pertain to the state's legal framework.

Summary

House Bill 2919 seeks to amend provisions related to the rules adopted or amended by the Texas Supreme Court concerning the state bar. The bill mandates that any proposed rule or amendment must be published in the Texas Bar Journal and made accessible on the state bar's website for public comment. This process aims to enhance transparency, allowing members of the public to engage with and provide feedback on proposed legal changes well before they are finalized. Additionally, the bill establishes a specific period for comment, ensuring that stakeholders have a voice in the legislative process.

Sentiment

Overall, the sentiment regarding HB 2919 is favorable among proponents of legal transparency and public engagement. Supporters view the bill as a progressive step towards democratizing legal processes, making them more accessible to the public. However, some critics may argue about the practicality of implementing such a robust public comment process, considering the potential bureaucracy it may introduce in urgent matters requiring immediate legislative action, thereby representing a tension between public engagement and efficiency in legal proceedings.

Contention

Notable points of contention surrounding HB 2919 include concerns about the balance between public input and the expediency of legal rule-making. Opponents might argue that while public comment is essential, there are instances when the supreme court may need to act swiftly without the delay of a comment period. Members of the legal community may also question the effectiveness of public feedback, suggesting that comments from non-experts might complicate the rule-making process. Thus, while the intent of increasing transparency is appreciated, the bill raises important discussions about its implementation and potential impacts on the judicial system.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Similar Bills

No similar bills found.