INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTHESTATEOFMONTAN 

In re 

ARTHUR M. GOROV, 

Petitioner. 

) ORDER 

The Rules for Admission to the Bar of the State of Montana require that all applicants 

to the Bar must successfully complete the Montana Bar Examination. The Rules also contain 

a provision, at Section VIIA, that the Court may waive any requirement under the Rules 

under circumstances it deems sufficient. 

Arthur M. Gorov, an attorney licensed in the State of Illinois and by several other 

courts, has petitioned the Court for admission to the practice of law in the State of Montana 

by waiver of the bar examination requirement. Gorov is 69 years old, and plans to move to 

Montana. He has been engaged in the practice of law in the State of Illinois since graduating 

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 State Bar Association in 1999 in recognition of his efforts on behalf ofpatients 

in need of 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 engage in teaching. 

The Court finds that Gorov’s long and successful legal career, and the prospect of his 

continued public service within Montana, warrant waiver of Rule IIIC of the Montana Rules 

of Admission requiring applicants to 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 admission to 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. 

Justices 
Justice James C. Nelson dissents. 

I do not agree with our order, There is no question that Mr. Gorov is a well-respected, 

well-qualified attorney, and my disagreement here is not meant to denigrate his credentials 

in any way whatsoever. 

That said, we ostensibly adopted the rule requiring the successful completion of the 

Montana Bar Exam by those wishing to practice law in Montana for the reason that we 

wanted to make sure that attorneys who will represent persons before the courts of this State 

possess a good understanding and familiarity with Montana law and jurisprudence. We 

believed--or so I thought--that attorneys practicing in this State should have at least as good 

an understanding of Montana law as the graduates of Montana’s School of Law--all of whom 

are required to, nevertheless, pass the 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 opposed it 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 insure the integrity and quality of the practicing bar in Montana, we went ahead 

and adopted the non-reciprocity rule in the face of substantial criticism. 

As to Mr. Gorov, he does not 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 

representation by attorneys competent in the intricacies of Montana law and jurisprudence 

as those persons who can hire counsel. 

I can see no 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 see is that we 

have now established a precedent that will require all well-qualified, well-respected attorneys 

from other states to be admitted to practice in this State without the necessity of successfully 

3 
passing the Montana Bar Exam. In fact, I can also foresee one of these attorneys who is 

denied admission having an arguable equal 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 Justice Karla M. Gray and Justice W. William Leaphart join in the foregoing dissent. 

4