Montana Lawyer April/May 2025

The State Bar opposed SB 15 (failed) which proposed to ex pand the grounds for impeachment, including for judicial officers, adding a negligence standard, in a broad departure from tradi tional impeachment grounds. Lastly, SB 66 (failed) proposed revisions to legal definitions affecting the judiciary, adding a new definition of bias to include even facial expressions of judges. The State Bar opposed this legislation. The State Bar’s preference list and additional information about legislation tracked during the session are available at: www. montanabar.org/News/Legislative-News Montana may not use funds derived from compulsory dues for lobbying purposes unless the State Bar makes provision to refund members dissenting to such lobbying an aliquot portion of com pulsory dues paid by said members, said refund to be based upon the proportion of the lobbying expenses incurred by the State Bar to the number of dues-paying members…” 2025 Session Lobbying Expenses and Refund The Bar’s lobbying expenditures for the 2025 Legislative Session are filed with the Montana Commissioner of Political Practices and are available online at www.montanabar.org/News/ Legislative-News. The calculated refund is $13.93. Dues Refund Policy In compliance with the Reynolds decision, the refund procedure is outlined in Policy 3-104. Members who object to the use of their dues for the State Bar’s legislative positions during the 2025 session may submit a pro rata refund request. Deadline: Requests must be submitted within 45 days of the publication of this notice. Decision: The State Bar Board of Trustees will consider the request and issue a decision within the timeframe set by policy. To Request a Refund: Send a signed written objection and

The State Bar opposed several measures that sought to al ter judicial conduct standards and discipline systems in ways that conflicted with existing judicial authority or constitutional principles. Among them was HB 169 (failed) , which attempted to effectively legislatively rewrite a portion of the Montana Code of Judicial Conduct. The Bar also opposed HB 224 (failed) , which would have statutorily prohibited judges from seeking or accepting political endorsements — a subject already addressed under the Montana Code of Judicial Conduct and therefore properly governed by the judiciary. The State Bar of Montana routinely supports or opposes leg islation during the Montana Legislative Session that aligns with the Bar’s established purposes, which include: Aid[ing] the courts in maintaining and improving the administration of justice,” and “Insur[ing] that the responsibilities of the legal profession to the public are more effectively discharged.” (Article III, Constitution of the State Bar of Montana) In addition to the Bar’s Constitution and Montana Supreme Court orders establishing the Bar’s purposes, the Bylaws of the State Bar of Montana (Article I, §4(b)) and Policy 3-102 guide the Executive Committee in making legislative decisions. Under these policies, the State Bar may take a position on is sues falling within the following categories: A. Regulation and discipline of attorneys B. Functioning of the courts, judicial efficiency, and efficacy C. Availability of legal services D. Attorney trust accounts E. Education, ethics, integrity, and regulation of the legal profession F. Law reform, adoption of uniform laws, and statutory improvement Policy 3-102 further provides that, even if an issue falls outside these categories, the Bar may still take a position if: The issue is of great public interest; Lawyers are especially suited to evaluate and explain the issue to the public; and The subject matter affects the rights of those likely to come into contact with the legal system. In Reynolds v. State Bar of Montana , 660 P.2d 581 (Mont. 1983), the Montana Supreme Court ruled that: “The State Bar of Indian Law Week In Review SUBMITTED BY SAPPHIRE CARTER & KRISTINA LUCERO The University of Montana Native American Law Student Association (“NALSA”) held its annual Indian Law Week from April 14 through 18. This year’s theme was The Future of Sovereignty: Building Resilience and Leadership in Indian Country. On the first day, NALSA, Baucus Institute, and the University of Montana Alexander Blewett III School of Law Admissions hosted a group of aspiring attorneys from students and pro fessionals across the state of Montana for our third annual American Indian Law Preview Day. The group learned strategies for taking the LSAT, enjoyed a tour of the law school, and sat in

Dues Refund Notice – 2025 Montana Legislative Session

request for refund to: State Bar of Montana P.O. Box 577 Helena, MT 59624

The request must include the challenger’s name, mailing ad dress, phone number, Bar number, and any other information required by Policy 3-104. The full Bylaws and Policies of the State Bar of Montana are available at: https://www.montanabar.org.

on Professor Kekek Stark’s American Indian Diplomacy: Tribal State Relations course. The day ended with a panel where current Native American law students shared about their experiences while attending law school. The group also heard from power house tribal advocate Frank Ducheneaux (Cheyenne River Sioux) about his long career serving Indian Country in the federal gov ernment and at the National Congress of American Indians. In the evening, NALSA screened the film Demon Mineral . The film documents the history of uranium mining on the Navajo Nation. The next day NALSA held a panel on Indigenous

18 MONTANA LAWYER

WWW.MONTANABAR.ORG