2025 · Regular session · House bill
HB4325
HB4325 raises a specific civil penalty for prohibited barratry—unlawful solicitation of professional employment—from $10,000 to $50,000.
Official caption: Relating to civil liability for prohibited barratry.
Official report lists House author(s): Moody, Garcia Hernandez, Cassandra. This does not identify sponsors or amendment drafters.
Bill explanation published · Version and amendment review scope is stated below · Individual amendment records may not be separately annotated.
Bill highlights
Selected points from the published explanation. Follow each point to its source-linked context; conditions and limits may matter.
- HB4325 raises a specific civil penalty for prohibited barratry—unlawful solicitation of professional employment—from $10,000 to $50,000.
- The winning plaintiff recovers the $50,000 penalty from each person who engaged in the barratry, along with actual damages caused by the prohibited conduct and reasonable and necessary attorney's fees.
- The qualifying conduct is defined through the existing Section 82.0651, which refers to Penal Code Section 38.12(a) or (b) and State Bar Rule 7.03.
- The increase applies to actions filed on or after September 1, 2025.
- HB4325 does not raise the separate $10,000 penalty in Section 82.0651(b) for clients who entered a contract procured through barratry.
What does it do?
HB4325 raises a specific civil penalty for prohibited barratry—unlawful solicitation of professional employment—from $10,000 to $50,000. The change concerns a person who was unlawfully solicited but did not enter into a contract as a result, and who wins a lawsuit under Government Code Section 82.0651(c).
The winning plaintiff recovers the $50,000 penalty from each person who engaged in the barratry, along with actual damages caused by the prohibited conduct and reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees. Those damages and fee remedies already existed; this bill increases the penalty amount by $40,000.
The qualifying conduct is defined through the existing Section 82.0651, which refers to Penal Code Section 38.12(a) or (b) and State Bar Rule 7.03. Those provisions have specific elements and exceptions. Not every advertisement, referral or contact from a lawyer is unlawful: for example, the professional-conduct rules distinguish general advertising from targeted solicitation and recognize permitted relationships and communications.
The increase applies to actions filed on or after September 1, 2025. An earlier-filed action remains governed by the law in effect when it was filed. That is a filing-date rule, not language restricting the increase only to solicitations occurring after September 1.
HB4325 does not raise the separate $10,000 penalty in Section 82.0651(b) for clients who entered a contract procured through barratry. It also does not change criminal punishment or automatically establish that a particular contact violated the law.
What changed along the way?
The introduced bill already proposed the $50,000 amount. The House substitute clarified the drafting of the amount and the filing-date applicability provision without changing that policy. The House engrossed, Senate committee and final operative texts match the substitute.
The amendment index lists no floor amendments. The history records that the bill became law without the governor’s signature on June 22, 2025, effective September 1.
For the full amendment record, open the official amendment index.
Official bill versions
Compare the published text versions in the official text index. A change is not attributed to a specific amendment here without a verified record.
Who could benefit—and who could bear the costs?
People who resist unlawful solicitation and do not sign a resulting contract gain a larger potential recovery and stronger financial deterrent. People found liable face a fivefold increase in this penalty even though the plaintiff did not become a client through that conduct. Recovery still requires a successful civil claim; an allegation alone does not produce an award.
The latest listed fiscal note, on the engrossed bill, anticipated no significant state or local fiscal impact and assumed government costs could fit existing resources. It did not quantify private litigation costs or total penalties likely to be recovered.
Review boundary: This explains HB4325’s narrow penalty change, not an individualized finding of barratry. Other changes to solicitation law, including HB2733’s separate 2025 electronic-communication amendments, should not be attributed to HB4325.
Official sources
- Bill history and latest recorded action
- Bill versions, analyses and fiscal notes
- Action history and votes
- Amendment index
Catalog report retrieved 2026-10-25. Check the official record for corrections or later changes.
