### INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTHESTATEOFMONTAN

In re ARTHUR M. GOROV,

Petitioner. 

### ) ORDER

The Rules for Admission to the Bar of the Stateof Montana require that all applicants to the Bar must successfullycompletethe Montana Bar Examination. The Rules alsocontain
a provision, at Section VIIA, that the Court may waive any requirement under the Rules under circumstancesit deemssufficient. Arthur M. Gorov, an attorney licensed in the State of Illinois and by several other courts, haspetitioned the Court for admissionto the practice of law in the Stateof Montana by waiver of the bar examination requirement. Gorov is 69 years old, and plansto move to Montana. He hasbeenengagedin the practice of law in the Stateof Illinois sincegraduating from DePaul University College of Law in 1954. He has held a number of supervisory positions in the Illinois court system, and was awarded the Tradition of Excellence Award by the Illinois StateBar Association in 1999in recognition of his efforts on behalf ofpatients in needof medical treatment. Gorov has never been the subject of any disciplinary action in the State of Illinois. He intends to practice part time in Montana, primarily on a pro bono basis,or to engagein teaching. The Court finds that Gorov’s long and successfullegal career, and the prospect of his continuedpublic servicewithin Montana, warrant waiver of Rule IIIC of the Montana Rules of Admission requiring applicantsto successfully complete the Montana Bar Examination. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the request of Arthur M. Gorov for waiver of Rule IIIC of the Montana Rules of Admission is hereby GRANTED. Gorov shall comply with all other requirements for admissionto the State Bar of Montana.The Clerk is directed to mail true copies of this Order to Arthur M. Gorov and to Jan

Weber at the State Bar of Montana. -?L DATED this &day of August, 200 1.

JusticesJustice JamesC. Nelson dissents.

I do not agree

with our order, Thereis no questionthat Mr. Gorov is a well-respected, well-qualified attorney, and my disagreementhere is not meant to denigrate his credentials in any way whatsoever. That said, we ostensibly adoptedthe rule requiring the successfulcompletion of the Montana Bar Exam by those wishing to practice law in Montana for the reason that we wanted to make surethat attorneyswho will representpersons before the courts of this State possessa good understanding and familiarity with Montana law andjurisprudence. We believed--or so I thought--that attorneyspracticing in this Stateshould have at leastasgood
an understanding

of Montana law asthe graduates of Montana’sSchoolof Law--all of whom are requiredto, nevertheless, passthe Montana Bar Exam before being admitted to practice in this State. In fact, our adoption of the non-reciprocity rule was very controversial and those members of the Bar who opposedit pointed out that the rule would likely have the effect of denying admission to the Bar of otherwise well-qualified attorneys from other states. We were accused

of protectionism and parochialism. Nonetheless,taking the higher ground of wanting to insurethe integrity and quality of the practicing bar in Montana, we went ahead and adoptedthe non-reciprocity rule in the face of substantialcriticism. As to Mr. Gorov, he doesnot need to be a member of the State Bar of Montana to teach.On the other hand, while representing persons pro bono is, obviously, a commendable- -not to mention, much needed--public service, poor people are as much entitled to representationby attorneys competent in the intricacies of Montana law andjurisprudence as thosepersonswho can hire counsel. I can seeno legitimate reason for waiving the bar exam requirement in this case given our rationale for adopting the non-reciprocity rule in the first place. What I do seeis that we havenow established

a precedent

that will require all well-qualified, well-respectedattorneys from other states

to be admitted to practice in this Statewithout the necessityof successfully
3passingthe Montana Bar Exam. In fact, I can also foresee one of these attorneys who is

denied admission having an arguableequal protection claim against this Court. In any event, so much for the higher ground. It appears that the detractors of the nonreciprocity rule were right all along. I dissent.

Chief JusticeKarla M. Gray andJusticeW. William Leaphart join in the foregoing dissent.

4