The Make Justice Affordable Again (MaJAA) Act
H.B. 5104
H.B. 5104 is based on platforms which political party delegates throughout Texas voted for in 2024, in one party's case by a 93% voter approval rate among over 7,000 state delegates.
H.B. 5104 is based on the official draft approved by the Texas Legislative Counsel (TLC) on February 24th, 2025 as proposed bill #89R-15935. Representative Nate Schatzline nobly filed the bill on March 13th, 2025.
For supportive policy rationales followed by a summary of this bill, please see the text located beneath this .pdf document (which, incidentally, has a scrolldown bar to the right, appearing in at least most browsers):.
BACKGROUND, POLICY RATIONALES & ANALYSES FOR H.B. 5104:
WHEREAS on February 14th, 2025, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton wrote that "Texans clearly deserve better. Given the immense success that President Trump, Elon Musk, and DOGE are seeing at the federal level, I think there should be a similar evaluation of how the Texas State Bar operates with the possibility of eliminating the entity given how it's tried to enforce its leftist political agenda;" and
WHEREAS, President Donald Trump perceives the state bar "lawfare" problem to be so grave that he aired the following relevant hour-long documentary at Mar a Lago on Saturday night, January 4th, 2025 to over a thousand invited guests: http://www.EastmanDilemma.com (as this video of President Trump's speech beforehand shows). The documentary video is still free to view online; and
WHEREAS over 80% of Texas’ state bar attorney membership consistently abstains from voting in that bar’s annual, internet-enabled, month-long elections despite their still being forced to pay (ever-increasing) annual dues, as these statistics help show: http://www.TexasBarSunset.com/voter-abstention ; and
WHEREAS, union membership is not mandatory as a prerequisite for getting to work for a living, as the U.S. Supreme Court’s fairly recent case of Janus v. AFSCME, 138 S.Ct. 2448 (2018) helps make clear; and
WHEREAS, the 5th Circuit Court of Federal Appeals ruled in 2021 essentially that the State Bar of Texas unlawfully uses coercively extracted dues money and subsidies to engage in impermissible political and social activities that are not germane to its mission or permitted by applicable laws. Meanwhile it has not provided members with sufficient recourse. Indeed, it successfully claimed sovereign immunity during a subsequent class action against them… See generally: McDonald v. Longley, 4 F 4th 229 (5th Cir. 2021) & Boudreaux v. State Bar of Louisiana (2023); and
WHEREAS Most lawyers in the USA reportedly do not need to join a state bar to get to earn a living as attorneys, while reportedly nearly 2 dozen U.S. states have no mandatory membership bar association, either; and
WHEREAS although in 1992 nearly all Texan civil defendants had legal counsel in court, now only around 25% obtain it, according to the National Center for State Courts and the Bureau of Justice Statistics. After all, cyberspace makes it easier for the Texas Bar to enable and encourage fee disputants to harm attorney members with costly (purported) ethics complaints that drive up expenses and which make lawyers' fees inaccessible for most laypersons (while that Bar profits substantially); and
WHEREAS, fairly recent attempts to reform the Texas Bar’s weaponized grievance system, internally, were improperly thwarted anti-democratically by exorbitantly compensated bar leaders, as a video linked from the third paragraph from the top exposes here (beginning with the emboldened word "Query:": http://www.TexasBarSunset.com/reforms ; and
WHEREAS, the Texas Bar continues trying to disbar or otherwise harmfully discipline attorneys using conveniently vague ethics rules that it selectively enforces. Meanwhile it forces unapproved dues increases upon intimidated yet silenced members, while also receiving over $13 million annually for continuing legal education (CLE) sales regarding what its vague & ambiguous ethics rules supposedly purport to mean: http://www.TexasBarSunset.com/budgets ; and
WHEREAS, the Texas Bar peculiarly merges trade association activities with disciplinary ones, with each fortifying the other while apparently forcing Texan taxpayers to subsidize the retirement pensions of purported workers who did not even perform inherently governmental activities instead of trade association ones; and
WHEREAS, the Texas Bar somehow forgot to mention its recent & very substantial internal embezzlement problems in its Sunset Review self-evaluation report submitted in 2015. Only one of the public comments even mentioned them (TexasBarSunset.com's). Nevertheless, that Bar was trying to get from the legislature unlimited rights to increase annual member dues whenever it likes, as much as it likes, all without even remembering to notify the (still compulsory) members and while incorrectly claiming to them, in writing, that their referendum rights remained protected; and
WHEREAS, Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Procedure impose a mere “preponderance of the evidence” standard for securing disciplinary convictions by that bar, while the standard of proof of the American Bar Association’s Model Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement (#18.3) is a more rigorous “clear and convincing evidence” one. Similarly, the U.S. Supreme Court says that attorney discipline proceedings are "quasi-criminal" in nature. In re Ruffalo, 390 U.S. 544, 551 (1968).
WHEREAS, Texas is one of at most nine U.S. states that impose a less protective “preponderance of the evidence” standard. In Texas' case, the requirement is at Texas Disciplinary Rule of Professional Procedure 3.08 c). In contrast, at least 42 U.S. states, plus Washington D.C., have a form of the more demanding “clear and convincing evidence” standard for attorney discipline cases. Further details (including lists of relevant states) are available here in reform proposal #4).; Furthermore:
WHEREAS, risks of predatory bar prosecutions and other lawfare discourage attorneys from accepting unproven, nonwealthy clients, and from providing a sufficiently aggressive representation for all of their clients. This results in an unnecessary demand for Access to Justice charities’ driving up societal costs while also denying some people a sufficiently persistent legal representation; and
WHEREAS, potentially inappropriately influential benefits that the Texas Bar has been known to bestow upon judges & justices “coincidentally” handling attorney discipline cases include, but are not limited to Bar lobbying for judicial salary increases at taxpayers’ expense, the providing of free publicity opportunities including through Continuing Legal Education [CLE] course offerings, supportive social media posts, public recognitions, and awards for media outlets that favor particular judges & justices over competitors. Such benefits also include the conducting of judicial polling of the Texas bar membership as well as the providing of job references & recommendations for "golden parachute" opportunities to be bestowed subsequently. For more details: https://www.texasbarsunset.com/judicial-neutrality; and
WHEREAS, political party activists throughout Texas have already overwhelmingly (93%) embraced essentially the following legislative reform proposals, as http://www.TexasBarSunset.com/platforms documents...
SUMMARY OF H.B. 5104 (WHICH IS BASED ON BILL DRAFT #89R-15935, INCLUDED ABOVE):
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1) Texas attorney disciplinary proceedings shall proceed under the “clear and convincing” evidence standard instead of the “preponderance of the evidence” one. [Bill source: page 9, section 1.13 b) 8), line #14]
2) As of June 1st, 2026, the Texas Bar may not collect any more annual (or other) dues unless and until it conducts an annual membership referendum in which two-thirds of all attorneys who would actually have to pay the dues approve of the continued mandatory membership requirement. [Bill source: pages 3-4, section 1.04]
3) Fees the state bar collects under Chapter 81 of the Texas Government Code, or other funds the state bar receives may not be used to provide a gift, grant, or donation to influence a judge, justice, judicial candidate, or judicial association. A judge, justice, judicial candidate, member of a judicial association, or descendant or member of the household of a judge, justice, judicial candidate, or member of a judicial association may not accept a gift, grant, or donation from the state bar. [Bill source: pages 5-6, section 81.034 b)]
4) The Supreme Court of Texas shall adopt a system for imposing monetary sanctions against persons who file frivolous grievances against attorneys. [Bill source: page 8, section 1.13 b) 5), lines #26 & #27]
Thank you for reading this. Would you like to help make a difference by exercising your democratic rights in favor of the abovementioned reform proposals?
To find your elected state senator and representative (etc.):
http://www.fyi.legis.state.tx.us
Meanwhile: Lt. Governor
Additionally:
Here's a (photographic) directory of Texas state senators.
Here's a directory of Texas Senate State Affairs Committee members.
Here's a (photographic) directory of Texas' House Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence Committee
* * *
Any questions? Would you like to contact us directly?
You are welcome to visit us at X.com (formerly known as Twitter):
Thank you for having read this and for having considered helping these (good) causes with your democratic participation!
To return to our cover page:
