The DEAL Act directs the Comptroller General to prepare a report within 180 days of enactment on settlements with “covered law firms” to determine whether there has been a violation of the Miscellaneous Receipts Act. A settlement made with a covered law firm is defined by five criteria, including delivery of legal services (including pro bono), direction of these services toward Executive Branch–identified beneficiaries, and a value threshold of at least $1,000,000.
The window of interest is settlements entered between February 1, 2025, and April 30, 2025. The act does not alter existing law or penalties; it creates an oversight reporting obligation to surface potential compliance issues and inform future policy discussions.
At a Glance
What It Does
The Comptroller General must report within 180 days on any settlement with a covered law firm to assess potential Miscellaneous Receipts Act violations. A settlement is defined by specific criteria that connect the provision of legal services to Executive Branch actions.
Who It Affects
Covered law firms, federal agencies engaging with large legal service arrangements, and compliance professionals within those firms and agencies; the GAO staff conducting the review.
Why It Matters
It introduces transparency around large external legal engagements and creates a data point to assess potential improper uses of federal funds, without changing existing legal rules or penalties.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The DEAL Act creates a new reporting obligation that centers on large arrangements between federal agencies and outside law firms. The Comptroller General must produce a report within 180 days of enactment that catalogs settlements with “covered law firms” and assesses whether those settlements might trigger violations of the Miscellaneous Receipts Act.
The act’s definition of a settlement is precise: it covers written or oral agreements where a law firm delivers legal services (including pro bono), where those services are directed toward causes or beneficiaries approved by the Executive Branch, and where the agreement is tied to actions that suggest withdrawal, rescission, or reduced enforcement of an order or action. The threshold for coverage is substantial: the value of legal services must exceed $1,000,000, and the agreement must be entered during a narrow window (February 1 to April 30, 2025).
Importantly, the bill only establishes a reporting duty; it does not create new penalties or modify existing law. The result is a transparency lever intended to help policymakers and compliance professionals evaluate potential risks and inform future reforms.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill defines a “settlement made with a covered law firm” by five criteria, including value, timing, and Executive Branch direction.
The coverage threshold is $1,000,000 in legal services.
The reporting deadline is 180 days after enactment.
The report centers on potential violations of the Miscellaneous Receipts Act (31 U.S.C. 3302(b)).
The relevant settlements must have been entered between February 1 and April 30, 2025.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
This section provides the official name of the Act: the Disclosure of Engagements with Attorney Law Firms Act of 2025, or the DEAL Act of 2025.
Reporting obligation
This subsection requires the Comptroller General to prepare and submit a report within 180 days of enactment that reviews settlements with covered law firms to determine whether there has been a violation of the Miscellaneous Receipts Act. The focus is on documenting and assessing potential improper receipts or misallocation of federal funds through large legal-service engagements.
Definition of settlement with a covered law firm
This subsection defines the core term “settlement made with a covered law firm” and lays out five criteria: (1) delivery of legal services (including pro bono) by the firm or its agents; (2) implication that services are directed toward causes or beneficiaries identified or approved by the Executive Branch; (3) linkage to withdrawal, rescission, or non-enforcement of executive orders or regulatory actions; (4) an estimated value of legal services exceeding $1,000,000; and (5) the agreement entered into between February 1, 2025, and April 30, 2025.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Taxpayers seeking transparency in federal legal engagements and potential safeguards against impropriety.
- The GAO and its staff, gaining a clear reporting mandate and status as the overseer of compliance with federal financial rules.
- Federal agencies that engage large-law-firm services, which will have a defined reporting framework and expectations for data sharing.
- Covered law firms that participate in large, high-profile engagements, benefiting from clearer expectations and standardized disclosures.
Who Bears the Cost
- The GAO, which must collect data, analyze settlements, and produce the report, incurring personnel and logistical costs.
- Federal agencies that will need to assemble and furnish data on large settlements with law firms.
- Covered law firms and their clients, which may face increased administrative burdens and heightened scrutiny for large engagements.
- Smaller firms and vendors that participate in or compete for federal legal work, which could experience broader compliance demands.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether a reporting mandate that captures only a narrow slice of large legal engagements can meaningfully deter or uncover improper use of funds, without unduly constraining legitimate government–law firm collaborations or creating ambiguous classifications that complicate compliance.
The DEAL Act’s transparency objective is clear, but practical questions arise. The narrow timing window for what qualifies as a covered settlement could exclude other significant arrangements, potentially creating a grandfathering problem.
The act relies on a GAO-led assessment to identify possible Violations of the Miscellaneous Receipts Act, but it does not prescribe remedies, penalties, or a mechanism to compel agencies to adjust practices based on the report’s findings. There is also ambiguity around what constitutes “directions toward causes” identified by the Executive Branch and how that interacts with permissible coordination between agencies and outside counsel.
These tensions could shape how aggressively agencies pursue or document the kinds of engagements the bill aims to disclose.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.