Helena – Representative Tom Millett (R-Marion) urged the passage of Senate Bill 92, which would make membership in the Montana State Bar Association voluntary for attorneys, arguing it was a fight for constitutional rights to choice and association.   

"Some may see this bill as an attack on the Bar, but that is not the case," Millett emphasized on the House floor. He explained that the bill aimed to return constitutional rights to lawyers while maintaining oversight of the legal profession.

However, House lawmakers overwhelmingly rejected the bill in a 43-57 vote.

Representative Brian Close (D-Bozeman), also an attorney, pointed out that there was no support for the bill during the House Judiciary Committee's consideration. He further noted that even Republican attorneys on the committee opposed the measure.

"There were no lawyers in the hallway wailing, 'Unshackle us!'" Close stated, adding, "The parties most impacted by the current Bar structure are content with it."

The Montana Supreme Court ordered the creation of the Montana State Bar in 1974, and membership became a prerequisite for practicing law in the state.   

Senator John Fuller (R-Kalispell) introduced Senate Bill 92 as a "freedom bill." His primary contention was with the mandatory association of attorneys with the State Bar, which collects dues and takes stances on some political matters, including legislative lobbying.   

Members who object to the Bar's positions can receive a proportional refund of dues used for those activities, which amounted to $7.61 in the last session.

Nevertheless, Fuller still took issue with attorneys being compelled to associate with the Bar.

Representative Alana Griffith (D-Gallatin Gateway), an attorney and former treasurer of the State Bar, raised concerns during the House floor debate that the bill did not include a clear alternative mechanism for attorneys who opt out of the Bar to meet the licensing and continuing legal education requirements necessary to maintain their law licenses.

Opponents of the bill also pointed out that the Montana Constitution explicitly grants the state Supreme Court the authority to make rules regarding attorney qualifications, arguing that the legislature's move was an overreach of power.

Millett, who is not an attorney, countered this argument by noting that a legal review opinion from legislative staff was not attached to the bill.

Fuller had previously criticized the State Bar last year during a continuing legal education seminar panel discussion, citing allegedly inappropriate remarks and personal attacks made by a Montana attorney.

The Montana State Bar Association plays a significant role in maintaining ethical standards for attorneys and enhancing the quality of legal services. Many argue that mandatory membership ensures all lawyers adhere to the Bar's regulations and participate in professional development, thereby contributing to consumer protection.   

Concerns have been raised that transitioning to voluntary membership could weaken the Bar's financial stability and diminish its oversight capabilities. Additionally, there are fears that fewer attorneys would voluntarily join the association, potentially leading to a decline in the overall professional standards of the legal community.

The House's decision indicates that the current structure of the Montana State Bar Association will remain in place, but the debate over the balance between constitutional freedoms and professional oversight is likely to continue in the future.

[Copyright (c) Global Economic Times. All Rights Reserved.]