No. 12616
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1973
In the Matter of the Application
of the President of the Montana
Bar Association for the Making of
Rules Governing Admission to the
Bar and the Conduct of its Members,
and for Unification of the Bar of
the State of Montana to Administer
Such Rules.
Submitted: December 17, 1973
Decided :
3 \ 2 9 1974
CN
Filed :
2 9 :974 .:
$ ,.
PER CURIAM:
On October 16, 1973 an original petition was filed
herein requesting this Court ( ) to order unification of the
1
Montana Bar and ( ) to direct such Unified Bar to present to
2
this Court for adoption proposed rules for its government,
admission of attorneys to the practice of law, and for the
conduct of its members,
The petition and objections thereto came on for hearing
on December 17, 1973. Numerous briefs were filed, oral arguments
were heard, and the matter was taken under advisement.
The power of this Court to order unification of the bar
is clear. Its inherent power to order unification is established
by the following cases: In re Unification of the Montana Bar
~ s s ' n(1939), 107 Mont. 559, 87 P.2d 172; In re Unification of
Bar of this Court (1947), 119 Mont. 494, 175 P.2d 773; Application
of the Montana Bar Ass'n (1962), 140 Mont. 101, 368 P. 2d 158;
Application of the Montana Bar ~ s s ' n(1963), 142 Mont. 351, 385
P.2d 99; In re Petition for the Unification of the Montana Bar
(1971), 156 Mont. 515, 485 P.2d 945. The 1972 Montana Constitution
specifically grants this Court the power to make rules governing
admission to the bar and the conduct of its members. Art.VI1,
Sec, 2, 1972 Montana Constitution.
Previous applications for unification have been denied for
the following reasons: (1) Failure to show a need for unifica-
tion (In re Unification of the Montana Bar Ass'n (1939); In re
Unification of Bar of this Court (1947). (2) Members of the bar
did not desire unification (Application of the Montana Bar Ass'n
(1963). ()
3 A divided and disinterested bar and a divided Court
on the issue of unification (In re Petition for the Unification of
the Montana Bar (1971).
Approximately thirty of the fifty states of the United
States now have unified bars including our neighboring states of
North Dakota, Wyoming, and Idaho, and a substantial majority of
all western states.
Arguments advanced by proponents of a unified bar, both
in this state and elsewhere, include: (1) the legal profession
is better able to police and regulate itself; (2) a unified bar
has greater influence in promoting necessary legal reform; (3) a
unified bar promotes greater participation, diversity of views and
quality of work from the legal profession; ( ) local bar associa-
4
tions are promoted by unification; and (5) unification eliminates
"freeloaders" and nonparticipants in the obligations of the legal
profession such as protection of the public by client security
funds, making legal services available to all in need by lawyer
referral plans, and similar public obligations and services.
Arguments advanced by opponents of unification include:
( ) no necessity exists for unification; (2) compulsory member-
1
ship deprives an attorney of the fundamental liberty of freedom
of choice; (3) conditions have not changed since the last denial
of unification in Montana; ( ) workable and proven rules for
4
admission to practice and the conduct of attorneys exist outside
the framework of unification; and (5) unification deprives an
attorney of his property without due process of law and places
him in a condition of involuntary servitude in violation of
constitutional guarantees.
The controlling consideration on the issue of unification
is direct and clear: How is the public best served?
The practice of law is not a private preserve maintained
for the benefit of attorneys. An attorney has neither a vested
right nor a property right in the practice of law. In re Isserman,
345 U.S. 286, 73 S.Ct. 676, 97 L ed 1013; Bradwell v. The State,
16 Wallace 130 (83 U S )
..; Ex parte Garland, 4 Wallace 333 (71,U.S.)
Constitutional guarantees do not prohibit unification. Lathrop v.
Donohue, 367 U.S. 820, 81 S.Ct. 1826, 6 L ed 2d 1191.
The practice of law exists to provide a needed service to
the public. To accomplish this purpose, one who wishes to practice
law must initially meet required standards of character; required
standards of education, knowledge and ability; and required
standards of ethical conduct---hence rules are required for
admission to the bar. Equally important is the continuing
nature of these obligations and standards throughout the pro-
fessional life of an attorney---hence rules are required governing
the conduct of those engaged in the legal profession. The vast
majority of attorneys practicing in Montana recognizes these
requirements and standards and conforms its qualifications and
and conduct accordingly. But, individual abuses do exist which
damage the legal profession as a whole and render it unable to
fulfill its obligations to the pub1j.c in the highest degree. We
would be blinding ourselves to reality were we not to recognize
the increasing incidence of such abuses by some individuals in
the profession.
The practice of law is a privilege burdened with cond'itions.
Matter of Rouss, 221 N.Y. 81, 116 N.E. 782, quoted with approval
in Theard v. United States, 354 U.S. 278, 77 S.Ct. 1274, 1 L ed 2d
1342. Such conditions include: protection of the public from
unethical practitioners; continuing legal education; providing
for the availability of legal services to all; promoting needed
legal reform; to name a few.
Are all practitioners in Montana meeting these obligations?
Do all attorneys: Contribute to client security funds? Partici-
pate in lawyer referral plans? Initiate or even participate in
needed legal reforms? Face the problems of unethical conduct by
fellow practitioners? Of course not! Unification of the bar
appears to be the best available method of correcting the fore-
going abuses and conditions which have, in our view, become worse
since the last application was heard. This Court considers action
at this time imperative.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
(1) Pursuant to the powers of the Montana Supreme Court
to govern and control the practice of law in Montana, all persons
admitted to the practice of law in this state are hereby unified
into an organization to be known as the Unified Bar of Montana
which shall be organized in this manner:
(a) The name of the organization shall be "The Unified Bar
of Montana.
(b) The purposes of the Unified Bar of Montana shall be
to aid the courts in maintaining and improving the adminis-
tration of justice; to foster and maintain on the part of
those engaged in the practice of law high standards of in-
tegrity,learning, competence, public service, and conduct;
to safeguard proper professional interests of members of the
bar; to encourage the formation, maintenance, and activities
of local bar associations; to provide a forum for the discus-
sion of and effective action concerning subjects pertaining
to the practice of law, the science of jurisprudence and law
reform, and relations of the bar to the public; and to insure
that the responsibilities of the legal profession to the public
are more effectively discharged.
(c) All persons now or hereafter admitted to practice
law before the Supreme Court of this state, excluding judges
of courts of record, are declared to be active members of the
Unified Bar of Montana. Each active member shall pay the
annual attorney license fee provided by law and shall pay such
membership dues in the Unified Bar of Montana as are approved
by the Montana Supreme Court and contained in the by-laws.
Nonpayment of nembership dues shall result in suspension of
membership and the right to practice law until payment.
(d) A Board of Trustees shall be elected as the governing
body of the Unified Bar of Montana from the active members thereof.
Such Board shall consist of sixteen trustees, two from each area
ddgpated in the order establishing the Commission on Practice
contained in the order in Supreme Court Cause No. 10910, dated
January 5, 1965. The principle of proportional and area re-
presentation as contained therein shall be followed and the
establishment and election of the Board shall be in
similar manner as in the order in Supreme Court cause
No. 10910, dated January 5, 1965.
(e) Officers of the Unified Bar of Montana shall
include a President, a President-Elect, and a Secretary-
Treasurer. They shall be nominated and elected annually.
The President and President-Elect shall be nominated and
elected by the active members of the Unified Bar of Montana.
The Secretary-Treasurer shall be nominated and elected by
by the Board of Trustees but need not be a member of such
Board. The duties, powers, qualifications, nomination
and election of officers shall be provided for in appro-
priate by-laws.
(f) The Montana Supreme Court shall possess and
retain original and exclusive jurisdiction in the enforce-
ment of professional ethics and conduct of members of the
Unified Bar of Montana, as provided in the Code of Pro-
fessional Responsibility as now existing or which may
hereafter be adopted. The practice and procedure of the
Commission on Practice of the Supreme Court of the State
of Monpana as provided in the existing order covering the
same in Supreme Court cause No. 10910, dated January 5,
1965, or as the same may hereafter be amended, shall be
retained.
(2) An organizational committee shall be named to draft
a proposed Constitution for the government of the Unified Bar of
Montana; prop~sedby-laws in conformity herewith and covering
such other subjects as it deems appropriate; and an implemental
schedule. The same shall be submitted to the Montana Supreme
Court for approval not later than December 1, 1974.
(3) The organizational committee shall be appointed by the
Supreme Court.
(4) Notice shall be given by mailing a copy of this order
to each attorney licensed to practice by this Court.
DATED this 29th day
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
No. 12616
RE: THE UNIFIED BAR OF MONTANA
O R D E R
PER CURIAM:
In this matter our Order of January 29, 1974, provided
for the appointment of an organizational committee with the
. duties and responsibilities as outlined in paragraph numbered
(2) thereof. Paragraph (3) provides for appointment of the
members and in accordance therewith the following attorneys
are appointed as such members:
James E. Murphy, Kalispell
Shelton C. Williams, Missoula
James E. Purcell, Butte
John M. McCarvel, Great Falls
John F. Iwen, Great Falls
Fred J. Weber, Havre
Henry Loble, Helena
Douglas R. Drysdale, Bozeman
Thomas M. Ask, Roundup
John A. Hauf, Billings
Arnold A. Berger, Billings
Wayne K. Cumming, Sidney
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Henry Loble shall be Chairman
and John A. Hauf shall be Vice-Chairman; the committee to appoint
such further officers as they deem necessary.
DATED this 1st day of February, 1974.