Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Judicial Discipline topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Montana bill would bar automatic gag orders on Judicial Standards complaints; state bar objects
Summary
Sen. Carl Glimm told the House Judiciary Committee SB48 would preserve First Amendment speech rights by preventing an automatic gag when a complaint is filed with the Judicial Standards Commission; the State Bar cautioned the change would expose largely‑dismissed complaints and harm judges’ confidentiality.
Sen. Carl Glimm introduced Senate Bill 48 to the House Judiciary Committee, saying the measure would prevent an automatic gag order when someone files a complaint with the Montana Judicial Standards Commission and preserve the complainant’s First Amendment speech rights. "Your First Amendment free speech rights don't end when you file a complaint with the Judicial Standards Commission," Glimm said when opening the hearing.
The State Bar of Montana, represented online by Bruce Spencer, opposed the bill. Spencer told the committee that more than 98% of complaints filed with the Judicial Standards Commission are dismissed and that confidentiality protects judges from frivolous allegations that can damage careers. He cited a legislative auditor review that found the commission's processes "broadly in the mainstream" and urged the committee to resist SB48.
Committee questioning focused on balancing free‑speech concerns against the bar's argument that premature disclosure would publicize meritless complaints. Representative Staffman pressed Glimm on whether judges need greater protection because they often draw dissatisfied parties; the sponsor maintained that complainants should not automatically lose the right to speak and that some complaints raise procedural issues deserving public attention.
No formal vote was recorded during the hearing; the sponsor closed by urging the committee to concur. The committee then closed the SB48 hearing and moved on to the next bill.
The hearing record contains competing factual claims: the sponsor framed the bill as a straightforward First Amendment protection, while State Bar representatives argued disclosure would regularly expose meritless complaints and impair judicial discipline and administrative processes. The committee did not take final legislative action during the session.
