*1 Application BAR MONTANA ASSOCIATION for Uni
fication of Mon State tana. No. 10234. May January
Submitted
1961.
1962.
Decided
Joseph Monaghan, Wellington Butte, Rankin, Helena, P. D. Butte, Myles Lynch, Kottas, Thomas, Jeremiah J. Leo J. J. Hel- ena, McAlear, Lodge, Wilson, Hardin, James H. Red H. Robert Geagan, Butte, Massman, Helena, Wm. N. Hubert J. Leon L. Bulen, Missoula, Harris, Erickson, Helena, LaVerne Y. Leif protestants.
PER CURIAM.
Application by petition was made to this the Montana Bar officers of Association to the unification prayer the Bar of the state. The petition that “the Bar of Montana be inte after due
grated appropriate unified an manner con problems court], and relative thereto sideration of the [this (1) time appointing further that this issue order: respect petition only pre to the place *2 and for this with hearing whether not inherent liminary as to Court’s question unify and Bar shall exercised at this be hearing; proper of and and for notice such providing1 (2) providing that all other issues further consideration of including questions regarding the struc petition, raised proposed integrated organization Bar and tural form membership rights, duties, and of definition of conditions preliminary questions shall therein, until such be deferred been determined.” petition a by setting entertained the time and court gave all
place hearing by mailing licensed for the notice Clerk’s annual license records from the members set, proponents opponents date copy of the order. theOn length. petitions, letters, and informal were at Numerous heard hearing opinions expressions Pending were of received. postcard mentioned, the conducted informal Chief Justice attorneys practicing poll within the poll of active state. The large opinion. sampling was a rather of was not all-inclusive but propositions: Integra- For poll contained three postcard The Integration, anony- The were tion, responses Don’t Care. Against variety expressions in part and came back in a wide of mous Bight questions twenty- hundred addition to three asked. mailed, 595 Of the cards were five cards were mailed. against, responded to; for, expressed “Don’t 288 voted Care”, not returned. From this no definite 280 cards were con- made, appropriate: these observations seem clusion can be but against unification, About of are one-third about unification, not for about one-third do care. From one-third expressions postcards added to the from letters received poll, large concerning seg- one obvious conclusion is that a just ment our Bar not know do or understand what unifica- tion contemplates. a Bar entails or Also, it apparent that many against those who voted integration of the Bar did so the Bar because Association’s petition did plan not include a which would indicate the struc- ture proposed organization, control, pro- the areas of posed levied, fees to any other matters. In other words attorney expressed it, as one buying pig “I don’t feel like poke”. in a matter same has before this in 1938, been In re
Unification of
Ass’n,
the Montana Bar
107 Mont.
87 P.2d
172; and in 1946 In re Unification of Bar
Court,
of this
In 1938, the court made (1) two conclusions: that this court has authority adopt, promulgate, and en- force necessary, proper appropriate rules its own government and for regulation the admission and attorneys law; (2) the situation Montana did not demand a *3 change petition and therefore justice the was denied. One dis- vigorously sented to the second stating conclusion that in his opinion integrity the of the Bar was at rapid stake and that the growth of administrative boards and bodies had been the result failures, court an suggesting that Bar would strengthen judicial the government branch of improve the justice. administration of
In 1947,
again
court
this
declined to
integration
of the
year
Bar. In that
the court at 495 of
In other addition to legislature through with- made attempts been several been having attention coming the last one to our success, out 1943. imposes annual 93-2010, R.C.M.1947, an Montana, section year. This amount is collected per tax $10.00
license legislature provided has The Court. Clerk attorneys in section governing admission of statutes various R.C.M.1947, 93-2007, provided: supreme May Bules. court “Supreme Establish The attorneys coun- rules for admission of may establish chapter.” with not inconsistent selors inception power its over has its exercised The court since Mont., at 562 of p. law. as this court practice Just * *' * in 1938, has at 173 of “This 87 P.2d observed adopt, power authority promulgate enforce necessary, proper appropriate government rules for its own attorneys law.” regulation of and for the admission and expression judicial authority for this incident Chap Constitution, VIII, under Art. derived Montana, We 20 of Title 1947. ter Revised Codes “implied power” discussing power” no “inherent point see firmly has operation. control its own been of the court to For this court has referred to the settled. which eases Territory Murray, 251, 257, implied inherent or see v. 7 Mont. Consol., 145; 15 P. State ex Boston & Montana etc. v. rel. Mettler, Clancy, Judge, P. 10; Mont. In re 299, 302, 747; 146 P. State Metcalf District Mont. ex rel. v. Court, 46, 48, 278, L.R.A.1916F, 132; Mont. 155 P. Court, 276, 288, 191 rel. Rankin District 58 Mont. P. ex v. Hurley Court, State ex rel. v. District 772; *4 Court, 200, P. ex Burns 83 Mont. 250; 246 State rel. v. District Court, rel. 92 207, 439; 271 P. ex District State Cheadle v. 107, 118, 94, 99, Heinze, P.2d 586; 10 Finlen v. 27 Mont. Mont. 829, 517; ex 69 P. 70 P. State rel. Whiteside v. First Judicial
105 Ken ex rel. 558, 395; State 539, 63 P. Court, District 24 Mont. 256, 2 327, P.2d 320, 194 nedy Court, v. District Mont. P.2d 490, 501, Hansen, re 101 Mont. 1050; A.L.R.2d ’ Service, Inc., Credit 882; rel. Freebourn v. Merchants State ex Mont. 94, 337; 66 P.2d Bullard v. 76, 104 Mont. Zimmerman, 26, McDonald, 124 Mont. 512; 268 P. McDonald v. v. Point 929, ex rel. La 1260; 15 A.L.R. 2d 32, 218 P.2d 37, P. Bennett Court, 29, 88; State ex rel. District 69 Mont. Bonner, 414, P.2d v. 747. in
Examples its is court’s use of found XXV, provisions eligibility Rule wherein this court has made beyond legislative admission Bar enact- to over ments. publication
In a Society, entitled, the American Judicature Bibliography Integrated on The in “Citations and published States”, July, 1961, United this brief introduc- tion made: integrated development
“The bar movement is a major significance legal on the American scene. The first voices urging adoption its heard years ago, were some 45 in 1921 North Dakota became the state first an have bar. integration Since bar has exhibited remarkable vi- tality growth. Today more than half the states in our system adopted federal this form of organization bar and the States, Court of the United in the first ex- pression on matter, sustaining has affirmed a decision bar integration Lathrop Donohue, Wisconsin. v. 367 U.S.
81 S.Ct.
L.Ed. 1191 (1961),
affirming
10 Wis.2d
(1960).
“As in the States, United of the bar refers to the establishment —whether by statutory enactment (based legislative police on power) or rule of court (based on authority regulate 'inherent the profession) or a combination government sanctioned, of both —of dues-paying organization practice admitted jurisdictions state. The *5 106 operation, including bars in 1961 were in
in which establishment, dates and methods of are: Date Means of 1923 Statute Alabama 1955 Statute Alaska 1933 Statute Arizona Const. Amendment Arkansas 1938 1927 Statute California 1949 Rule Court Florida 1923 Statute Idaho Rule Kentucky 1934 Statute & Court Rule- Statute & 1940 Court Louisiana Rule 1935 & Court Statute Michigan 1930 Statute Mississippi Rule 1944 Court Missouri 1937 Court Rule Nebraska 1929 Statute Nevada 1925 Statute Mexico New 1933 Carolina Statute North 1921 North Dakota Statute 1939 Court Rule Oklahoma 1935 Statute Oregon Rico 1932 Statute Puerto Statute 1931 Dakota South Statute & Rule 1939 Court Texas 1931 Statute Utah Rule Statute & Court Virginia Rule Court Virgin Islands Statute Washington Rule Statute & Court Virginia West & Court Rule Statute Wisconsin Rule.” Statute & Court Wyoming Society is contained publication In the American Judicature cons, fore pros and sources, reference material from and aft. own, states, including only say
It is fair to too some without integration, although almost specifically rejected inte- exception the courts have assumed to have grate they if chose to do so. year days prior 1946, only
In the
a few
to our own court’s
integrate,
like-
decision not to
Wisconsin
*6
Bar,
523,
Integration
in “In re
the
249 Wis.
wise declined
of
1943,
previously
S.Ct.
the
of dues assessment
upheld.
Orders of the Wisconsin court integrating the Bar
by-laws
and approving rules
of the Bar,
and
imposing require
compulsory membership,
ments of
and payment
dues,
of annual
violate,
were held not to
on the
presented,
record
any consti
rights
attorneys.
tutional
United States
pointed
out that
bulk of State Bar activities serve the func
elevating
tion “of
the educational and ethical standards of the
improving
Bar to the
quality
legal
end
service
people
state,
available to
without any
to
reference
political process.”
first
(In
our court’s
declination
re Unification of Mon
supra,
Ass’n,
tana
“The accomplished standing of court as and the in record pride the of history men by many the judicial able into written and in their they possibly can upon it, than served who have say being so, we hesitate to That ability and wisdom. own pro- formulated and of rules to in a new set be that we can in sufficiently improve the situation this time mulgated Admittedly, proposed the experiment. the justify to Montana new comparatively that many features are with it plan carries sufficiently entirely to demonstrate been tried yet not and have existing the rules.” advantage over and their worth their single twenty-three years later, not a noteworthy that It is back to the gone Bar has adopted an has that state to integrated Bar be referred system. longer old No can the experiment. as an abe position to recently, has not been in
Until this court anything but delays justice. in Its own docket critic of being new and the Now, however, current. our docket current operative believe rules about to become we of Civil Procedure the Bar itself. timely improvement it to of to look forward the and improvement court, in our district is need for There justice courts, in are members. which the of we in movement
Previously history we have the noted Lathrop finally it in v. Donohue Wisconsin as culminated the Supreme We likewise decision of States Court. United in “buy pig poke” not a a proceed wish to with caution and something nor or uninformed Bar. unsuspecting force on in in In this the Minnesota connection 195, Integration Minnesota, 216 Minn. Petition For of Bar of N.W.2d said: position foregoing on “Having questions, clear our made exercising of propriety expediency we now consider in power requested. such manner here The fact that this upon possessed by imposes inherent it court fairly responsibility exercising justly, it in an of not arbitrary capricious manner, any except in manner to development strong vigorous aid in a bar to assist performance the court of its functions.” later, That re Bar of Minnesota, rejected integration Minn. 34 N.W.2d being as longer by no desired the Bar.
Therefore, long-standing we view reiterate court’s that to the Bar. to we do have As phase, propose appointment second we a volun lawyers voluntary judges, in the teer committee of char expenses may met, representing acter no funds for areas, propose grouping ages, views plan wide licensed submitting after it mail *8 considering objections suggestions of our Bar and presented. order, At in to be named com- specific plan. mittee shall to this court recommend questions: First, court shall then hear anew shall we these adopt plan and, second, we presented; if affirmative, answer in the what specifically shall mechan- plan supervision including ics of such what shall adopted proba- we retain addition to whether it be on a tionary permanent basis or in form. DERRY, Judge, parti- The Hon. C. District GUY
Note: cipated hearing appeal determination of this place and stead MR. STANLEY M. who JUSTICE DOYLE disqualified. MR. JUSTICE ADAIR:
I dissent right and reserve the to hereafter attach hereto in my writing reasons therefor.