On February 14, 2024, the South Dakota Supreme Court convened a rules hearing to discuss three significant proposals aimed at improving the state's legal framework. The meeting highlighted key amendments that could enhance the governance of the state bar, clarify probation credit regulations, and establish a new commission focused on access to the courts.

The first proposal addressed amendments to Article 5 of the state bar's bylaws, presented by Paul Kramer, a representative of the state bar. This amendment seeks to align the requirements for president-elect candidates with those for at-large bar commissioners, thereby formalizing the election process. Kramer emphasized that this change would enhance transparency and provide clearer guidelines for candidates, which could lead to more informed electoral choices within the bar.

The second proposal involved a minor yet impactful amendment to South Dakota Codified Law (SDCL) 23A-48-19, which pertains to the discharge of probation credits. The proposed change, introduced by Mister Trongold, would replace the term "one full month" with "two full months." This adjustment aims to eliminate ambiguity regarding probation status, ensuring that individuals on probation have a clear understanding of their status and when they will be discharged.

The most notable discussion centered around the proposal to create a new commission on access to the courts, presented by Mister Sazdan. This initiative aims to address the fragmented nature of legal assistance available to individuals who may not afford an attorney. Sazdan pointed out that South Dakota is one of the few states lacking a centralized entity to oversee and coordinate legal services. The proposed 11-member commission would work to develop a strategic plan to improve access to the court system, particularly for self-represented litigants. By fostering collaboration among various legal service providers, the commission aims to streamline resources and enhance support for individuals navigating the legal system.

The hearing concluded without opposition to any of the proposals, indicating a general consensus on the need for these changes. The court will now consider the proposals further, with potential implications for the legal community and individuals seeking justice in South Dakota. As these discussions progress, the establishment of a coordinated approach to legal assistance could significantly impact access to justice in the state.