The Senate Judiciary Committee convened on April 15, 2025, to discuss a significant bill presented by the Attorney General's office concerning the role and authority of the Attorney General in legal matters involving the state of South Carolina.

The meeting began with an overview of the bill, which clarifies that when the Attorney General represents the state, it is in the public interest and not as a legal representative for any specific department or agency. This distinction is crucial as it ensures that the Attorney General does not gain possession or control over documents from departments that are not involved in the lawsuit. However, the bill does allow the Attorney General to represent a department or agency in a proprietary capacity.

A notable aspect of the bill is the introduction of the remedy of disgorgement for violations of the Unfair Trade Practices Act. Disgorgement is a civil remedy that requires wrongdoers to repay ill-gotten gains, aiming to compensate those harmed without excessively punishing the offenders.

Additionally, the bill establishes a privilege for materials prepared by the Attorney General's office for law enforcement purposes during investigations related to the Unfair Trade Practices Act. This privilege protects the confidentiality of documents drafted in the course of these investigations.

Following the presentation, Senator Elliott praised the bill's provisions, indicating strong support among committee members. A motion was made and seconded to advance the bill for further discussion. During the deliberation, a question arose regarding the implications of the Attorney General not acting as the legal representative for departments involved in lawsuits. Specifically, concerns were raised about whether this would necessitate departments hiring outside counsel for legal representation.

The committee's discussions highlighted the importance of clarifying the Attorney General's role and the implications for state agencies, setting the stage for further examination of the bill's provisions in upcoming sessions. The meeting concluded with a commitment to continue evaluating the bill's impact on state legal practices.