Representative Valerie Moore opened the hearing on House Bill 116, which would establish a statutory default permitting public defenders to appear remotely by video for routine, non‑substantive court hearings while preserving a judge’s authority to require in‑person appearance for good cause.

The sponsor said the bill aims to reduce unnecessary travel by public defenders and improve efficiency; testimony from the Office of State Public Defender (OPD) estimated 16,000 hours of travel by attorneys in fiscal 2024 and a potential fiscal saving of about $164,000 if more routine hearings move to remote appearance.

Brett Shandelson, director of the Office of State Public Defender, described remote appearances as a way to stretch limited resources. “We would prefer to be in person at every single hearing,” Shandelson said, “but in 2025 the technology is allowing us to do more with less.” He said the agency is operating with a reported public defender shortfall of 44 FTEs in fiscal 2024 and that remote appearances for non‑substantive hearings could reduce workload equivalent to roughly 1.4 FTEs by avoiding travel time.

Don Cape of the Coalition for Safety and Justice testified in favor but warned of pitfalls from his experience in other states: judges’ differing willingness to adopt remote technology, the risk that remote-only contact weakens attorney‑client connection, and logistical variation across court systems and platforms.

Opponents included Rebecca Myers of the Montana Magistrates Association, who told the committee the association “respectfully oppose[d] the bill” and raised multiple concerns: judges already have discretion under current law to permit remote appearances; magistrates report that remote practice too often leaves attorneys without private in‑court conferences with clients; and many lower courts lack the physical or technical infrastructure to provide private meeting spaces and reliable, secure audio‑video platforms. Myers also expressed concern that some hearings listed as non‑substantive can be substantive in practice and said the magistrates had not been fully consulted during the interim.

Committee members questioned definitions and limits. Representatives asked about whether dependency‑and‑neglect pre‑hearing conferences and initial bond hearings would be covered; OPD witnesses said dependency and neglect pre‑hearing conferences are typically substantive and not intended to be covered by the bill’s non‑substantive default, and that courts could require in‑person appearance where necessary. Witnesses explained that modern platforms (the judicial branch commonly uses Zoom) can provide private breakout or caucus rooms for attorney‑client conferrals, but departments and some local courts may not yet have the required equipment.

Fiscal and operational details were discussed. Shandelson and OPD staff said the bill would reduce per‑diem and travel reimbursement costs and free attorney time for casework; OPD noted state motor pool vehicles are often used for travel and that lodging and per‑diem are reimbursed under state travel rules when required. The magistrates and some judges raised concerns about continuity, the potential for an erosion of courtroom presence, and the administrative burden of providing five days’ notice when required by the bill’s text.

Representative Moore closed by asking the committee for a do‑pass. No vote on HB 116 was taken during the hearing.