Montana Lawyer April/May 2025

LEGISLATIVE UPDATE 2025 Legislative Session Lobbying Efforts

The 2025 Montana Legislature consid ered a number of bills affecting the regula tion of the legal profession and adminis tration of justice in Montana. The State Bar of Montana once again took an active role at the Capitol, providing testimony and advocacy on a number of measures. Pursuant to Board Policy 3-102, as well as the State Bar Bylaws and control ling authority from Reynolds v. State Bar of Montana, the State Bar may lobby and take positions on various legislative mat ters including: “A. Issues relating to the regulation and discipline of attorneys; B. Issues relating to the functioning of the court, and to judicial efficiency and efficacy; C. Issues relating to the availability of legal services; D. Issues relating to attorney trust ac counts; E. Issues relating to the education, ethics, integrity and regulation of the legal profession; F. Issues relating to law reform, adoption of uniform laws and statutory improvement.” The Bar reviewed a number of bills relating to the regulation of attorneys and the administration of the legal profession. The Bar opposed SB 92 (failed) , which proposed revisions to the eligibil ity requirements for practicing law in Montana and sought to legislatively undo the Montana Supreme Court’s Unification Order creating the State Bar, in violation of its constitutional role regulating in the legal profession. The State Bar opposed HB 65 (failed) which proposed a legislative performance audit of the State Bar of Montana. The State Bar is not a component of the State of Montana and is not funded by leg islative appropriation. Regulation of a attorneys is the province of the Montana Supreme Court. SB 14 (failed) called for a perfor mance audit of the Office of Disciplinary Counsel. For the same reasons, the State Bar also opposed SB14. SB14 and HB65 also raised significant confidentiality is sues pertaining to members of the profes sion and their Bar records. SB 31 (failed) proposed altering IOLTA accounts. The Bar noted that such matters fall under the Montana Rules of

Professional Conduct, which are adopted and maintained by the Court. The State Bar opposed this legislation. S B 193 (passed as amended) as intro duced, attempted to shift to the execu tive branch control of the Montana bar exam. The bill was amended, but the State Bar opposed attempts by the Legislative Branch to regulate attorney admission. The State Bar opposed SB 49 (failed) which would have exempted attorneys serving in certain public offices from professional discipline for actions taken while in office, undermining uniform standards of accountability within the legal profession. On matters relating to the function ing of Montana’s courts, the State Bar supported HB 2 (passed) , the General Appropriations Act, which included the judicial budget in Section D. The Bar also supported HB 111 (passed) , which adopts the Uniform Electronic Legal Material Act to ensure access and authentication of digital legal publications. As in past sessions, the Bar opposed numerous bills that proposed structural or electoral changes to Montana’s judi ciary. These included HB 751 , and SB 42 (all failed) , which proposed partisan judicial elections — a stance long opposed by the by the organized bar in Montana, including the State Bar’s predecessor, the Montana Bar Association, which in 1935 helped pass legislation making judicial elections nonpartisan. The Bar also opposed HB 646 (failed) , which would have required election of Montana Supreme Court justices by district, and HB 322 (failed) , which pro posed reducing the number of associate justices. Other proposals that died in cluded HB 295 and HB 788 (both failed) , which would have required civil attor neys (but not parties) to disclose certain political contributions already disclosed by the recipients — measures the Bar viewed as chilling attorney participation in elections. Additionally, HB 39 (passed) pro posed repealing restrictions on political party contributions to judicial candidates. The Bar has consistently supported

maintaining a judiciary that is impartial and removed from direct political influ ence and, for this reason, opposed legisla tion supporting partisan judicial elections. The State Bar opposed a number of measures that sought to modify or limit the Montana Supreme Court’s constitu tional authority or redefine the traditional separation of powers. Among these was HB 30 (failed) , which would have required the Court to apply a heightened burden of proof when reviewing the constitutionality of legislative acts — which intruded into the court’s established jurisprudence. The Bar also opposed SB 13 and SB 21 (failed) , which would have removed the Court’s original jurisdiction over ballot issues and authorized legislative and ex ecutive leaders to vacate writs of manda mus. Both measures raised separation of powers concerns. Additional measures — SB 44 and SB 476 (failed) — attempted to legislate the definition of “separation of powers.” These bills, too, were viewed by the State Bar as problematic. The Bar opposed two joint resolutions as well: SJ 2 (failed) , which disapproved of recently adopted Montana Supreme Court rules, including rules concerning the regulation of attorneys, in contraven tion of long-standing precedent, and HJ 14 (failed) , which rejected the founda tional precedent of Marbury v. Madison , characterizing supreme court rulings as merely advisory. The Bar opposed several proposed constitutional amendments. HB 460 (failed) would have allowed a certain percentage of electors in a county to force the impaneling of a grand jury, bypassing judicial discretion. LOBBYING EXPENSES & REFUND PROVISIONS Please see page 18 for an expla nation of the State Bar’s expens es during the legislative session and information on requesting a pro rata dues refund if you object to the sepending.

APRIL-MAY 2025

17

WWW.MONTANABAR.ORG