Require a prevailing party seeking attorney fees from the state to make certain showings
Summary
HB 706 would change the standards a party must meet when seeking attorney fees from the state after prevailing in litigation. The bill requires the prevailing party to provide an engagement letter or representation agreement from the start of the case, detailed daily billing records showing time spent on specific tasks in increments smaller than one-quarter hour, and proof that the invoices were paid within 30 days of receipt. It also allows redaction of information protected by attorney-client privilege.
The bill creates an exception for smaller parties: if the prevailing party’s income and assets at the end of the most recent fiscal year total $250,000 or less, the added documentation requirements would not apply. The measure would be codified into Title 25, chapter 10, part 3, which governs attorney fee awards, and would therefore affect court procedures and fee-shifting claims against the state government rather than substantive rights in the underlying cases.
Impact
HB 706 would amend Montana’s attorney-fee framework by adding specific evidentiary and documentation requirements for prevailing parties seeking fees from the state. It would place new burdens on fee applicants to preserve and produce contemporaneous billing and payment records, while exempting lower-income or lower-asset parties from those requirements. The bill would affect litigants, attorneys, and courts handling fee petitions under Title 25, chapter 10, part 3, and could make recovery of attorney fees from the government more difficult for some prevailing parties.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests little overt opposition in committee, as the House Judiciary committee vote to table the bill was unanimous at 20-0. However, the bill ultimately died in process, indicating it did not advance despite the lack of recorded dissent in the committee vote. With no transcript excerpts available, the overall sentiment can only be inferred from the procedural outcome: the proposal appears to have been considered but not carried forward.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the added burden on prevailing parties seeking attorney fees from the state, especially the requirement for contemporaneous daily billing records and proof of payment within tight timeframes. Supporters would likely view these requirements as a way to ensure fee claims are well-documented and reasonable, while opponents would likely argue that they create unnecessary hurdles, particularly for individuals or smaller entities litigating against the government. The $250,000 income-and-assets exemption suggests concern about protecting smaller claimants, but the bill still distinguishes between parties based on financial capacity, which could itself be a point of debate.