### No. 12616 INTHE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1973

In theMatter of the Application of the Presidentof theMontana BarAssociation for theMaking of Rules GoverningAdmission to the Bar and the Conduct of its Members, and forUnification of the Bar of the State ofMontana to Administer SuchRules.

Submitted: December 17, 1973 Decided: 

## 3C\N291974 Filed: 

### 29:974 .$: .,PER CURIAM: On October 16, 1973 an originalpetitionwas filed herein requesting this Court 

### (1) to order unification of the Montana Bar and (2) to direct such Unified Bar to present to this Court for adoptionproposed rules for its government, admission of attorneys to the practice of law,and for the conduct of itsmembers, The petition and objections thereto came on forhearing

on December 17, 1973. Numerous briefswere filed,oral arguments

were heard,and the matter was takenunder advisement. The power of this Court to order unification of the bar is clear. Its inherent power to order unification is established by the following cases: In reUnification of the Montana Bar ~ss'n (1939), 107Mont. 559, 87P.2d 172; In re Unification of Bar of this Court (1947), 119Mont. 494, 175 P.2d 773;Application of the Montana Bar Ass'n (1962), 140Mont. 101, 368 P.2d 158; Application of the Montana Bar ~ss'n(1963), 142Mont. 351, 385 P.2d 99; Inre Petition for the Unification of the Montana Bar (1971), 156Mont. 515, 485 P.2d 945. The 1972Montana Constitution specifically grants this Court the power to make rules governing admission to the bar and the conduct of its members. Art.VI1, Sec, 2, 1972Montana Constitution. Previous applications forunification have been denied for the following reasons: (1) Failure to show a need for unification (In reUnification of the Montana Bar Ass'n (1939); In re Unification of Bar of this Court (1947). (2) Members of thebar did not desire unification (Application of the Montana Bar Ass'n

(1963). (3) A divided and disinterestedbar and a divided Court

on the issue of unification (In re Petition for the Unification of the Montana Bar (1971). Approximately thirty of the fifty states of the United States now have unified bars including our neighboring states of North Dakota,Wyoming, and Idaho,and a substantial majority of allwestern states.Arguments advanced by proponents of a unified bar, both in this state and elsewhere, include: (1) the legal profession isbetter able to police and regulate itself; (2) a unified bar has greater influence in promoting necessary legal reform; (3) a unified bar promotes greater participation, diversity of views and quality of work from the legal profession; 

### (4) localbar associations are promoted by unification; and 

### (5) unification eliminates "freeloaders" and nonparticipants in the obligations of the legal profession such as protection of the public by client security funds,making legal services available to all inneed by lawyer referral plans, and similar public obligations and services. Arguments advanced by opponents of unification include: 

### (1) no necessity exists forunification; (2) compulsory membership deprives an attorney of the fundamental liberty of freedom of choice; (3) conditions have not changed since the last denial ofunification inMontana; 

### (4) workable and proven rules for admission to practice and the conduct of attorneys exist outside the framework of unification; and 

### (5) unification deprives an attorney of his property without due process of law and places him in a condition of involuntary servitude in violation of constitutionalguarantees. The controlling considerationon the issue ofunification is direct and clear: How is the public best served? The practice of law is not a private preserve maintained for the benefit of attorneys. An attorney has neither a vested right nor a property right in the practice of law. In re Isserman, 345 

### U.S. 286, 73 S.Ct. 676, 

### 97

### L ed 1013;Bradwell v. The State, 16Wallace 130 (83 U.S.); Ex parte Garland, 

### 4Wallace 333 (71,U.S.) Constitutionalguarantees do not prohibit unification. Lathrop v. Donohue, 367U.S. 820, 81 S.Ct. 1826, 6 L ed 2d 1191. The practice of law exists to provide a needed service to the public. To accomplish this purpose, onewhowishes to practice law must initially meet required standards of character; requiredstandards of education, knowledge and ability; and required standards of ethical conduct---hencerules are required for admission to the bar. Equally important is the continuing nature of these obligationsand standards throughout the professional life of an attorney---hencerules are required governing the conduct of those engaged in the legalprofession. The vast majority of attorneyspracticing inMontana recognizes these requirements and standards and conforms its qualifications and and conduct accordingly. But, individual abuses do exist which damage the legal profession as awhole and render it unable to fulfill its obligations to the pub1j.c in the highest degree. We would be blinding ourselves to realitywere wenot to recognize the increasing incidence of such abuses by some individuals in the profession. The practice of law is a privilege burdened with cond'itions. Matter of Rouss, 221

### N.Y. 81, 116

### N.E. 782,quoted with approval in Theard v. United States, 

### 354U.S. 278, 77 S.Ct. 1274, 1 

### L ed 2d 1342. Such conditions include: protection of the public from unethical practitioners; continuing legal education;providing for the availability of legal services to all;promoting needed legal reform; to name a few. Are all practitioners inMontana meeting these obligations? Do all attorneys: Contribute to client security funds? Participate in lawyer referral plans? Initiate or even participate in needed legal reforms? Face the problems ofunethical conductby fellow practitioners? Of coursenot! Unification of the bar appears to be the best availablemethod of correcting the foregoing abuses and conditionswhich have, in our view, become worse since the last applicationwas heard. This Court considers action at this time imperative. Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

(1) Pursuant to the powers of the Montana Supreme Court to govern and control the practice of law inMontana, allpersons admitted to the practice of law in this state are hereby unifiedinto an organization to be knownas the Unified Bar of Montana which shallbe organized in this manner: (a) The name of the organization shall be "The Unified Bar ofMontana. (b) The purposes of the Unified Bar of Montana shallbe to aid the courts inmaintaining and improving the administration of justice; to foster and maintain on the part of those engaged in the practice of law high standards of integrity,learning, competence,public service, and conduct; to safeguard proper professional interests ofmembers of the bar; to encourage the formation, maintenance, and activities of local bar associations; to provide a forum for the discussion of and effective action concerning subjects pertaining to the practice of law, the science of jurisprudence and law reform,and relations of thebar to the public; and to insure that the responsibilitiesof the legal profession to the public

are more effectively discharged. (c) All persons now or hereafter admitted to practice law before the Supreme Court of this state, excluding judges of courts of record,are declared to be active members of the Unified Bar of Montana. Each active member shall pay the annual attorney license fee provided by law and shallpay such membership dues in the Unified Bar of Montana as are approved by the Montana Supreme Court and contained in the by-laws. Nonpayment of nembership dues shall result in suspensionof membership and the right to practice lawuntil payment. (d) A Board of Trustees shallbe elected as the governing body of the Unified Bar of Montana from the active members thereof. Such Board shall consist of sixteen trustees, two from each area ddgpated in the order establishing the Commission on Practice contained in the order in Supreme Court Cause No. 10910,dated January 5, 1965. The principle of proportional and area representation as contained therein shall be followed and theestablishment and election of the Board shallbe in similarmanner as in the order in Supreme Court cause No. 10910,dated January 

### 5,1965. (e) Officers of the Unified Bar of Montana shall include a President,a President-Elect,and a SecretaryTreasurer. They shallbe nominated and elected annually. The President and President-Elect shallbe nominated and elected by the active members of the Unified Bar of Montana. The Secretary-Treasurer shallbe nominated and elected by by the Board of Trustees but need not be a member of such Board. The duties,powers, qualifications, nomination and election of officers shallbe provided for in appropriate by-laws. (f) The Montana Supreme Court shall possess and retain original and exclusive jurisdiction in the enforcement of professional ethics and conduct of members of the Unified Bar of Montana, as provided in the Code of Professional Responsibilityas now existing or which may hereafter be adopted. The practice and procedure of the Commission on Practice of the Supreme Court of the State of Monpana as provided in the existing order covering the

same in Supreme Court cause No. 10910,dated January 5, 1965, or as the samemay hereafter be amended, shallbe retained.



### (2) An organizational committee shallbe named to draft

a proposed Constitution for the government of the Unified Bar of Montana; prop~sed by-laws in conformity herewith and covering such other subjects as it deems appropriate;and an implemental schedule. The same shallbe submitted to the Montana Supreme Court for approvalnot later than December 1, 1974.(3) The organizational committee shallbe appointed by the Supreme Court. (4) Notice shallbe given by mailing a copy of this order to each attorney licensed to practice by this Court. DATED this 29th dayIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. 12616

RE: THE UNIFIED BAR OF MONTANA

ORDER

PER CURIAM: In thismatter our Order of January 29, 1974,provided for the appointment of an organizational committee with the

. duties and responsibilities as outlined in paragraph numbered (2) thereof. Paragraph (3) provides for appointment of the members and in accordance therewith the following attorneys are appointed as suchmembers: James E. Murphy, Kalispell Shelton C. Williams, Missoula James E. Purcell, Butte John M. McCarvel, Great Falls John F. Iwen, Great Falls Fred J. Weber, Havre Henry Loble, Helena Douglas R. Drysdale, Bozeman Thomas M. Ask, Roundup John A. Hauf, Billings Arnold A. Berger, Billings Wayne K. Cumming, Sidney IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Henry Loble shall be Chairman and John A. Hauf shall be Vice-Chairman; the committee to appoint such further officers as they deem necessary. DATED this 1st day of February, 1974.