Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the State Bar Audit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill to authorize legislative audit of State Bar sparks constitutional and confidentiality concerns
Summary
House Bill 65 would subject the State Bar of Montana to a legislative performance audit; the State Bar and multiple witnesses warned the proposal could conflict with the Supreme Court's supervisory role over the bar and risk exposing confidential information collected under bar processes.
Representative Lee Deming presented House Bill 65 to authorize a legislative audit of the State Bar of Montana, arguing that because the bar collects statutorily-mandated licensing fees and operates under a Supreme Court order, a legislative audit is justified to ensure public accountability.
Bruce Spencer, representing the State Bar, testified in opposition. Spencer said the State Bar is a "unified" bar created by a 1974 Supreme Court order, is not a state agency, and is funded by member dues rather than state appropriations. He said the bar already undergoes annual audits by independent accounting firms and that the Supreme Court receives a regular financial report. Spencer and other opponents argued the bill would create a precedent for auditing private organizations that appear before the legislature and could require disclosure of confidential disciplinary and member information.
John Marshall and other public commenters opposed the bill on principle, warning it would set a dangerous precedent and that available public pressure had not demanded such an audit. The legislative auditor testified that the bill would narrowly extend audit authority to entities created by Supreme Court order or under its supervision and noted that a prior existing contract between the judiciary and the bar governs collection of the attorney licensing tax and already gives limited audit rights.
Committee members asked whether the audit authority in the bill could survive constitutional challenge; the legislative auditor and counsel said a challenge would be anticipated and that, if the court found the extension unconstitutional, the audit would not proceed. The State Bar argued that the bill, as drafted, would be a performance audit reaching back ten years and would raise privacy concerns if the results were published.
The sponsor reiterated that the bill—s intent was oversight and transparency, particularly for funds flowing through the judicial budget, and asked for a favorable recommendation. The hearing closed without a committee vote in the transcript.
