Environment
No direct effect
Neutral — no direct effect identified.
Benefits
- No material direct effect identified.
Risks
- No material direct effect identified.
StateKansasIn Committee
SB 242: Requiring that a political subdivision hold an open meeting to discuss a contingency fee contract for legal services before approving such contract and requiring the attorney general to approve such contracts.
Committee on Judiciary
SB 242 status: In Committee — Died in Committee (updated Apr 10, 2026).
Source
OpenStates
Confidence
Low
Analysis basis
OpenStates summary
01
What this bill does
Official summary alongside an AI-generated read on where it stands and why.
Overall Score
60OUT OF 100
Score:60/100 civic fit
Risk:Low Risk
Impact:Moderate Impact 40/100
Constitutionality90%
Bipartisan50%
Public opinion70%
Bill summary
This bill creates new rules for local governments (like cities or school districts) that want to hire private lawyers who only get paid if they win a lawsuit. If this becomes law, the local government must: 1. **Hold a public meeting** to discuss the deal before hiring the lawyer. 2. **Get the state’s Attorney General to approve** the contract. The bill is currently being debated in the Senate.
02
Impact analysis
✦ AI analysisModeled effects across six domains, estimated from bill text and comparable legislation.
Economy
Mixed / Neutral
55%
Benefits
- Potential cost-savings from Attorney General oversight
- Standardized contracting practices across jurisdictions
- Prevention of excessive contingency fee rates
Risks
- Increased administrative delay for legal procurement
- Potential for state-level political interference
- Higher compliance costs for local governments
Society
No direct effect
Neutral — no direct effect identified.
Benefits
- No material direct effect identified.
Risks
- No material direct effect identified.
Technology Industry
No direct effect
Neutral — no direct effect identified.
Benefits
- No material direct effect identified.
Risks
- No material direct effect identified.
Civic Accountability
Positive outlook
65%
Benefits
- Mandates public disclosure of legal contracts
- Enables meaningful public scrutiny of litigation spending
- Provides a check on municipal legal decision-making
Risks
- Potential for administrative bottlenecks by the Attorney General
- Reduced autonomy for local municipal governments
- Adds bureaucratic hurdles to time-sensitive litigation
Public Health & Safety
No direct effect
Neutral — no direct effect identified.
Benefits
- No material direct effect identified.
Risks
- No material direct effect identified.
03
How trustworthy & consequential it is
Sourcing already shown above, this is what the analysis found worth flagging.
Source
OpenStates
Official bill text or data from OpenStates.
Confidence
Low
Information is limited or incomplete.
Analysis basis
OpenStates summary
Source used for this bill's analysis.
Source note
LegiScan returned a PDF-only document. PDF extraction is not enabled in this build, so the pipeline used a safer fallback.
Analysis scope
Source provided is an abstract; full text analysis is unavailable.
04
Where it stands
Official record- IntroducedComplete
- CommitteeCurrent
- Chamber votesUpcoming
- Final agreementUpcoming
- GovernorUpcoming
- EnactedUpcoming
05
How it affects your district
✦ Personalized
Set your location
Add your district to see how this bill may affect your community and who to contact.
Your Representatives
Your representatives appear here once you add your location.
06
Take action
Contact your representatives
Let them know how you feel about this bill.
Share your view
Join the discussion and see what others are saying.
Track this bill
Stay updated on progress and changes.