Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Government Oversight topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Heated hearing on bill to authorize legislative audit of State Bar of Montana; bar calls proposal punitive and unconstitutional
Summary
House Bill 65 would authorize a Legislative Audit Division performance audit of the State Bar of Montana and entities created by or under supervision of the Supreme Court; the bar and its counsel argued the organization is private, not state-funded, and warned the proposed audit would invade confidentiality and exceed statutory authority
Representative Lee Deming opened House Bill 65 saying the measure would authorize an audit of the State Bar of Montana because the organization collects funds required for licensure. “Because Montana is part of the state government, a legislative audit of those funds is justified,” he said.
Bruce Spencer, speaking for the State Bar of Montana, opposed the bill and called the state bar a private organization that “is not a state agency. It is not funded by the state.” He said the bar already undergoes annual external financial audits and provides reports to the Supreme Court. Spencer warned the bill’s broad audit language—going back 10 years and published on the audit division’s website—would invade member privacy and potentially expose confidential disciplinary information.
Legislative Audit Division Director Angus McKeever explained the bill’s audit provision would extend the audit act to entities created by Supreme Court order or under the court’s supervision; he noted the division already audits contractors that do business with the state and that a narrow audit of license-tax collection is feasible under current law but that broader performance auditing would be authorized by the proposed language. McKeever and the bar’s counsel both acknowledged the bill could prompt constitutional or legal challenges.
Committee members questioned whether the state bar is appropriately categorized for legislative audit and how privacy and confidentiality of disciplinary matters would be protected. Some members asked whether the Supreme Court’s constitutional authority to regulate the practice of law would limit the Legislature’s ability to subject the bar to audit; bar counsel cited past Montana Supreme Court decisions protecting the court’s regulatory role.
Outcome: the hearing closed with no action recorded. Members requested additional information, and the Legislative Audit Division said it would answer technical questions about scope and legal risk. The bar urged the committee to oppose the bill as unnecessary and potentially unconstitutional.
