No. 13644 

IN THE SUP- COUIU' OF THE STATE QE' MONTANA 

1978 

DOT\TALD A. DOUGLAS, for himself and 

for others of a class similarly interested, 

Plaintiffs and Appellants, 

-vsTHE STATE BAR OF MONTANA et al., 

Defendants and Respondents. 

Appeal from: District Court of the First Judicial District, 

Honorable Gordon R. Bennett, Judge presiding. 

Counsel of Record: 

For Appellants: 

Donald A. Douglas argued, Helena, bbntana 

For Respondents: 

Hughes, Bennett and Cain, Helena, Pbntana 

Alan F. Cain argue3 , Helena, b%xtam 

Suhitted: October 10, 1978 

Decided: AUG = 9 1979 

Filed: AUG -9 1928 
Mr. Justice Daniel J. Shea delivered the Opinion of the Court. 

This is an original action for declaratory judgment whereby 

the plaintiff seeks to nullify action taken by the State Bar 

of Montana in June 1975, voting at its annual meeting to 

increase the annual dues of its active and inactive membership. 

The background of this case has already been set forth in 

Douglas v. State Bar of Montana et al. (1978), Mont . 

I P.2d , 35 St.Rep. 510. There we set forth 

the factual background giving rise to plaintiff's claim and 

determined that although the District Court did not have 

jurisdiction to hear the matter we would treat the matter as 

an original petition for declaratory judgment. 

In Douglas, we noted that an order of this Court dated 

January 29, 1974 was in conflict with an order dated January 23, 

1975, wherein we inadvertently passed control over bar dues to 

the State Bar of Montana. By the 1975 order, all that is required 

is.that bylaws of the State Bar of Montana be amended with the 

approval of the membership at its annual meeting, and a dues 

increase then becomes an accomplished fact. We also noted in 

Douglas that we did not see how plaintiff could prevail unless 

this Court declared that its January 23, 1975 order was invalid. 

In the present petition therefore, plaintiff adds an argument that 

in any event the vote of the membership in June 1975 increasing 

the annual dues was invalid because the State Bar of Montana 

had failed before such meeting, to publish a financial statement 

of the State Bar. 

We note first that for purposes of this action, we deem 

the 1975 order of this Court to be controlling. Accordingly, 

the dues increase voted upon by the membership and without the 

approval of this Court, was proper. Nor do we believe that it 

is proper to nullify the action of the membership because the 

financial statement of the State Bar was not published before 

the annual meeting. 
Plaintiff argues that membership must be notified (as 

Section 

provided for in Article VIII,/3 of the bylaws of the State Bar) 

at least 30 days in advance of when and where the annual meeting 

was to take place. A proper notice was given in this case, and 

the notice also advised the membership that a proposed amendment 

to change the bylaws to increase annual membership dues was on 

the agenda. Plaintiff does not deny he had notice of this meeting. 

What he argues, however, is that the membership could not intelligently vote on the proposed amendment because it had no knowledge 

of the financial condition of the State Bar at the time the vote 

was taken. Article XII(b) of the bylaws states: "A financial 

statement showing assets, liabilities, receipts and disbursements 

of the State Bar shall be published in the State Bar Bulletin 

prior to the annual meeting." 

Because this statement was not published in the State Bar 

Bulletin before the annual meeting, plaintiff argues that the 

vote on the proposed dues increase was a nullity. 

Plaintiff had notice of the annual meeting, and notice 

that a proposed dues increase was on the agenda, but failed to 

attend. The State Bar admits that it failed to publish the 

financial statement before the annual meeting but explains it 

as being caused by the short time period between the transfer 

of assets from the former Montana State Bar Association (the 

nonunified bar association) to the present State Bar of Montana 

(the unified bar association). A vote was taken in Helena on 

May 15, 1975 by the Board of Trustees to transfer its assets 

to the State Bar of Montana. At the same meeting, the trustees 

adopted a resolution to increase the annual dues of its membership 

by amending the bylaws. Kent Parcell, the executive secretary 

of the organization told the trustees that the Bar was "in sound 

fimncial shape." Four days later, on May 19, 1975, a notice was 

-3- 
published in the Montana Bar Bulletin notifying all Montana 

lawyers that the annual meeting would take place at Big Sky, 

Montana, on June 20 and 21, 1975, and that one of the items 

on the agenda was a proposal to amend the bylaws so that annual 

dues could be increased. The State Bar argues that there was 

not enough time between May 15, 1975 and May 20, 1975 to gather 

and publish the financial statement of the State Bar of Montana. 

Thirty-six days elapsed between the transfer of the assets and 

the actual commencement of the State Bar meeting at Big Sky. 

There is certainly some connection between the financial 

condition of the State Bar and the necessity or desirability to 

increase the annual dues of its membership. But we do not believe 

that the failure to do so, under the circumstances here, is cause 

to nullify the action of the majority of those voting at Big 

Sky, to increase the annual dues of its active and inactive 

membership. Arguments pro and con were presented at the convention, 

and the vote to increase the dues prevailed. By our order of 

January 23, 1975, we authorized such action, and we see no reason 

to undo that action now. 

The problem however, of future dues increases, continues 

to fester. We noted in the first Douglas case that a significant 

opposition to a unified bar in this state was prompted by a 

fear that fees would be increased without a vote of the full 

membership. These people did not want their dues increased solely 

by a vote of those attending the annual bar convention meeting. 

This, indeed, was one of the reasons for our 1974 order wherein 

we specifically reserved the right to approve or disapprove of 

membership dues. This Court realized that often members cannot 

afford to, or for some other reason cannot or will not attend 

the annual meetings. Nonetheless, they should have a voice in 

determining whether their annual dues are to be increased. 

Presently, the voice is limited to those who attend the annual 

meetings. 

-4- 
We also noted in the first Douglas opinion that this 

Court inadvertently passed control over dues increases to 

the State Bar of Montana. That was something this Court did 

not intend to do. As far as the future is concerned, it 

should not stand unrectified. By retaining the authority to 

approve or disapprove of annual dues increases in this Court, 

the entire membership will have an opportunity to register their 

approval or disapproval. Clearly, the entire membership should 

have a say. 

We cannot grant relief to the plaintiff in this case. 

However, this Court will, by appropriate order, reinstate our 

authority to approve or disapprove of future dues increases. 

The State Bar of Montana will be instructed to take appropriate 

action to comply with the order of this Court. 

Except as herein noted, the relief requested by plaintiff 

is denied. The cause is ordered dismissed. 

+ 1 

/'I- _ / ,- -, ,,iz-,i4- - --L - LL-licic&z - 

Justice 

We Concur: 

Chief Justice 

Justices 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

No. 13644 

DONALD A. DOUGLAS, for himself and 

for others of a class similarly interested, 

Plaintiffs and Appellants, 

VS. 

THE STATE BAR OF MONTANA, et al., 

Defendants and Respondents. 

ORDER 

IT IS ORDERED that the following correction be made 

on page 3, line 19 of the above Opinion of the Court: 

"that a proposed dues increase was on the 

agenda, but failed to attend.. . ." 

SHOULD READ: 

"that a proposed dues increase was on the agenda.. . ." 

DATED this 7 day of August, 1979. 

Chief Justice 

AUGS - 1979 

gomad 8XarnQ~ 

CLERK OF SUPREME COURT 

STATE OF MONTANA