No. 12616 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1973 

In the Matter of the Application 

of the President of the Montana 

Bar Association for the Making of 

Rules Governing Admission to the 

Bar and the Conduct of its Members, 

and for Unification of the Bar of 

the State of Montana to Administer 

Such Rules. 

Submitted: December 17, 1973 

Decided : 3C\N 2 9 1974 

Filed : 2 9 :974 .$: ., 
PER CURIAM: 

On October 16, 1973 an original petition was 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 adoption proposed rules for its government, 

admission of attorneys to the practice of law, and for the 

conduct of its members, 

The petition and objections thereto came on for hearing 

on December 17, 1973. Numerous briefs were filed, oral arguments 

were heard, and the matter was taken under 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 re Unification of the Montana Bar 

~ss'n (1939), 107 Mont. 559, 87 P.2d 172; In re Unification of 

Bar of this Court (1947), 119 Mont. 494, 175 P.2d 773; Application 

of the Montana Bar Ass'n (1962), 140 Mont. 101, 368 P. 2d 158; 

Application of the Montana Bar ~ss'n (1963), 142 Mont. 351, 385 

P.2d 99; In re Petition for the Unification of the Montana Bar 

(1971), 156 Mont. 515, 485 P.2d 945. The 1972 Montana 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, 1972 Montana Constitution. 

Previous applications for unification have been denied for 

the following reasons: (1) Failure to show a need for unification (In re Unification of the Montana Bar Ass'n (1939); In re 

Unification of Bar of this Court (1947). (2) Members of the bar 

did not desire unification (Application of the Montana Bar Ass'n 

(1963). (3) A divided and disinterested bar 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 

all western states. 
Arguments advanced by proponents of a unified bar, both 

in this state and elsewhere, include: (1) the legal profession 

is better 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) local bar 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 in need by lawyer 

referral plans, and similar public obligations and services. 

Arguments advanced by opponents of unification include: 

(1) no necessity exists for unification; (2) compulsory membership deprives an attorney of the fundamental liberty of freedom 

of choice; (3) conditions have not changed since the last denial 

of unification in Montana; (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 

constitutional guarantees. 

The controlling consideration on the issue of unification 

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, 

16 Wallace 130 (83 U.S.); Ex parte Garland, 4 Wallace 333 (71,U.S.) 

Constitutional guarantees do not prohibit unification. Lathrop v. 

Donohue, 367 U.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, one who wishes to practice 

law must initially meet required standards of character; required 
standards of education, knowledge and ability; and required 

standards of ethical conduct---hence rules are required for 

admission to the bar. Equally important is the continuing 

nature of these obligations and standards throughout the professional life of an attorney---hence rules are required governing 

the conduct of those engaged in the legal profession. The vast 

majority of attorneys practicing in Montana recognizes these 

requirements and standards and conforms its qualifications and 

and conduct accordingly. But, individual abuses do exist which 

damage the legal profession as a whole and render it unable to 

fulfill its obligations to the pub1j.c in the highest degree. We 

would be blinding ourselves to reality were we not 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, 354 U.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 in Montana 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 of unethical conduct by 

fellow practitioners? Of course not! Unification of the bar 

appears to be the best available method of correcting the foregoing abuses and conditions which have, in our view, become worse 

since the last application was 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 in Montana, all persons 

admitted to the practice of law in this state are hereby unified 
into an organization to be known as the Unified Bar of Montana 

which shall be organized in this manner: 

(a) The name of the organization shall be "The Unified Bar 

of Montana. 

(b) The purposes of the Unified Bar of Montana shall be 

to aid the courts in maintaining 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 of members 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 the bar to the public; and to insure 

that the responsibilities of 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 shall pay 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 suspension of 

membership and the right to practice law until payment. 

(d) A Board of Trustees shall be 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 the 
establishment and election of the Board shall be in 

similar manner 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 shall be nominated and elected annually. 

The President and President-Elect shall be nominated and 

elected by the active members of the Unified Bar of Montana. 

The Secretary-Treasurer shall be 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 shall be 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 Responsibility as 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 same may hereafter be amended, shall be 

retained. 

(2) An organizational committee shall be 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 shall be submitted to the Montana Supreme 

Court for approval not later than December 1, 1974. 
(3) The organizational committee shall be appointed by the 

Supreme Court. 

(4) Notice shall be given by mailing a copy of this order 

to each attorney licensed to practice by this Court. 

DATED this 29th day 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

No. 12616 

RE: THE UNIFIED BAR OF MONTANA 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM: 

In this matter 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 such members: 

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.