Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
House Judiciary Committee votes to recommend 'do not pass' on bill that would broadly define 'interest'
Loading...
Summary
The House Judiciary Committee voted 8-6 to recommend 'do not pass' on House Bill 14‑09, which would add a broad definition of the word "interest" and, critics say, could allow non‑attorneys to appear in court for parties without subjecting them to lawyer disciplinary rules.
At a House Judiciary Committee meeting, members voted 8‑6 to recommend "do not pass" on House Bill 14‑09, a proposal to add a broad definition of the word "interest" in Title 32 that sponsors said would expand options for pro se litigants.
The bill's sponsor was not present. Supporters told the committee they want the term "interest" interpreted "as liberally as possible" so people who represent themselves could bring another person into a court action to help them. Representative Van Winkle told the committee the aim is to "give our citizens some opportunity to pull somebody into their case, when they can't find anybody to represent them" and that liberal interpretation of interest would "open up their opportunities to pull somebody in to help them." Representative Van Winkle noted a stated shortage of lawyers and said the option would be voluntary for litigants.
Opponents raised concerns about the unauthorized practice of law, ethics oversight and civil liability. Committee members said the attorney general's office reported that the word "interest" appears frequently in the Century Code — 4,375 times overall and 196 times in Title 32 — and that one draft sentence in the bill could allow a non‑lawyer to represent a party in a judicial action. Committee discussion repeatedly referenced that practicing law without a license is a criminal offense in state statute (described at the hearing as a class A misdemeanor) and that non‑lawyers would not be subject to lawyer disciplinary rules or professional liability regimes.
Lawmakers opposing the bill argued the change could create standing problems and unintended consequences throughout the Century Code. Representative Kearns said the committee was "arguing around in circles" and moved a "do not pass" recommendation; Representative Schneider seconded the motion. Representative Schneider later said she would "be resisting the do not pass" motion, while Representative Wolf warned the change "may have some unintended consequences somewhere else by changing the definition of interest." Representative Better and others expressed worries about removing professional licensing safeguards.
The roll call on the "do not pass" motion recorded eight members voting yes and six voting no, carrying the motion. After voting, committee members briefly discussed whether the bill would still need a bill carrier; Representative Satrim agreed to carry the bill forward despite the committee recommendation.
The committee did not adopt any amendment to require training, liability insurance, a waiver, or submission to disciplinary rules for non‑lawyer advisers during the hearing.
