Auditor, State Bar clash over bill to authorize legislative audit of Office of Disciplinary Counsel

Senate Bill 14 would require the Legislative Audit Division to conduct a performance audit of the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC), the entity that investigates and prosecutes lawyer discipline in Montana.

Sponsor Sen. Barry Usher told the committee the measure is a standard oversight step for a body that serves a public regulatory purpose. “A performance audit of the ODC by the legislative auditor will be objective, nonpartisan, unbiased, and impartial,” he said, adding the audit division follows professional standards and confidentiality rules.

The State Bar of Montana opposed the bill. Bruce Spencer told the committee ODC is funded entirely by lawyers, employs no state employees and already files an annual report and undergoes a fiscal audit by an independent CPA. He argued the bill’s attempt to treat ODC as a state agency raises constitutional concerns under Article VII, section 2 (the Supreme Court’s authority to regulate the legal profession) and could improperly expose confidential investigative records.

Angus McKeever, director of the Legislative Audit Division, answered committee questions about audit practice and scope. McKeever said performance audits use Government Accountability Office standards and can examine management, efficiency and effectiveness, not only accounting records. He said the audit division routinely engages stakeholders in planning and would safeguard confidential information; under the Legislative Audit Act auditors have access to certain records but the act and professional standards restrict public disclosure.

Committee members pressed sponsors and witnesses on why an audit is needed, whether ODC records are subject to confidentiality protections, and whether the legislature’s audit authority extends to private entities that perform public functions. The sponsor said questions raised in a prior special committee on judicial reform and accountability supported seeking an independent review. The State Bar emphasized existing reporting and fiscal audits and warned of separation-of-powers and confidentiality concerns.

The hearing closed with the sponsor urging committee members to treat the proposal as a transparency measure and the audit director offering to work with stakeholders on scope. No committee vote was taken in the hearing recorded in the transcript.