PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jan 4, 1995
Attorney's Fees Equity Act of 1995 - Entitles to reimbursement of reasonable attorney fees incurred during and as a result of an investigation that does not result in adverse action against such person a current or former: (1) Department of Justice (DOJ) attorney, agent, or employee who supervises an agent who is the subject of a criminal or disciplinary investigation arising out of acts performed in the discharge of duties in prosecuting or investigating a criminal matter, who is not provided representation under DOJ regulations; and (2) attorney, agent, or employee who supervises an agent employed as or by a Federal public defender who is the subject of such an investigation arising out of acts performed in the discharge of duties in defending or investigating a criminal matter in connection with the public defender program, who is not provided representation by a Federal public defender or the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. Considers an investigation not to result in adverse action against such person if: (1) in the case of a criminal investigation, the investigation does not result in indictment of, the filing of a criminal complaint against, or the entry of a plea of guilty by the attorney, agent, or supervising employee; and (2) in the case of a disciplinary investigation, the investigation does not result in discipline or results in only discipline less serious than a formal letter of reprimand finding actual and specific wrongdoing. Requires the Attorney General to provide notice in writing of the conclusion and result of the investigation. Permits an attorney, agent, or supervising employee who was the subject of an investigation to waive entitlement to reimbursement of attorney fees as part of a resolution of a criminal or disciplinary investigation. Sets forth further procedures regarding applications for, and payments of, reimbursement. Requires the official making an award to inquire into the reasonableness of the amount requested.
People & committees
Sen. Hatch, Orrin G. [R-UT] · R–UT
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Judiciary.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Received in the House.
Passed Senate without amendment by Voice Vote. (consideration: CR S14569)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Voice Vote.(consideration: CR S14569)
Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 10.
Read the first time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under Read the First Time.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S404-405)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 21, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.144 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.144 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.144 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.144 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.