SB 14 requires a one-time performance audit of the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, the entity that handles attorney discipline matters under the Montana judicial branch. The audit is to be conducted by or under the direction of the legislative auditor and is intended to examine the office’s funding sources, how money has been received and spent over the past 10 years, and how its budgets, costs, and functions have changed over time. The bill also directs the auditor to scope the review based on financial, operational, and technological risk and to follow standard auditing practices.
The bill further requires the judicial branch to pay the full cost of the audit. It sets a deadline for completion and presentation to the Legislative Audit Committee by December 15, 2026, and requires the final audit and any follow-up to be shared with interim legislative committees and posted publicly on the Legislative Audit Division website. The bill also amends the statutory definition of “state agency” in 5-13-102, MCA, to include entities created by or subject to supervision by the Montana Supreme Court, which helps clarify the audit division’s authority over judicial-branch-related entities.
Impact
SB 14 would expand legislative oversight of the judicial branch by mandating a performance audit of the Office of Disciplinary Counsel and requiring the judiciary to fund it. In practical terms, it would affect how the Legislative Audit Division can review a court-supervised entity, while also clarifying in statute that entities subject to Montana Supreme Court supervision fall within the definition of “state agency” for purposes of the audit chapter. The bill would not directly change attorney discipline rules, but it would create a detailed public review of the office’s finances, operations, and compliance structure.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have had meaningful support in the Senate, passing committee, second reading, and third reading there, but it encountered stronger resistance in the House, where it failed to be concurred in on second reading. The vote pattern suggests the proposal was viewed favorably by a majority in the Senate but was more controversial in the House, ultimately preventing enactment. No committee testimony is provided, so the available record shows support for oversight and transparency, tempered by opposition to the scope or implications of auditing a judicial-branch office.
Contention
The main point of contention is the bill’s reach into the judicial branch and whether the Legislature should require and fund an audit of the Office of Disciplinary Counsel. Supporters likely viewed the measure as a transparency and accountability tool for an office that handles attorney discipline and public trust issues, while opponents appear to have objected to legislative scrutiny of a court-supervised entity, the mandatory nature of the audit, or the requirement that the judicial branch bear the cost. The House vote against concurrence indicates the strongest resistance came after Senate passage, suggesting disagreement over separation-of-powers concerns or the policy need for the audit.