SB 39 revises Montana law governing attorney fee awards in civil lawsuits, with a particular focus on cases challenging state statutes or administrative rules. The bill requires that attorney fee requests be reasonable and sets out detailed documentation standards for fee applications, including itemized time records, specific task descriptions, receipts for expenses, and disclosures about billing rates and whether the client remains responsible for unpaid fees. It also creates rebuttable presumptions that certain billing practices are unreasonable, such as sending multiple attorneys to routine proceedings, charging for certain overhead items, or requesting higher hourly rates from less-experienced attorneys.
The bill amends section 25-10-711, MCA, to require that attorney fee awards against the state or a political subdivision be considered under the new reasonableness standards. When fees are awarded against the state, courts must also consider the hourly rate charged by the state’s attorney and explain any decision to award a higher rate. The new requirements do not apply to fee claims under $10,000, and the act applies to civil lawsuits pending on or after the effective date. Overall, the bill narrows and standardizes how fee requests are evaluated in civil litigation involving the government.
Impact
SB 39 changes Montana’s civil procedure and fee-shifting rules by adding statewide standards for what constitutes a reasonable attorney fee request and by tying awards in certain government-related cases to those standards. It directly affects litigants, attorneys, courts, and state and local government defendants, especially in lawsuits challenging statutes or administrative rules and in cases where fees are sought from the state or a political subdivision. The bill amends MCA section 25-10-711 and incorporates the new requirements into Title 25, chapter 10, thereby influencing how courts review, document, and justify attorney fee awards going forward.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have received mixed but ultimately favorable support. It passed the Senate and House with several close votes, suggesting meaningful debate, but it also cleared key committee and floor votes in both chambers and was ultimately enacted. The lack of committee transcript material limits insight into detailed arguments, but the voting pattern indicates that supporters had enough backing to advance the measure while a substantial minority remained opposed or concerned.
Contention
The main points of contention likely centered on whether the bill would appropriately curb excessive or poorly documented fee requests versus whether it would make it harder for prevailing parties, especially those suing the government, to recover full attorney fees. The rebuttable presumptions against multiple attorneys, certain overhead charges, and higher rates for less-experienced attorneys may have been viewed by supporters as cost controls and by opponents as restrictions on legitimate litigation expenses. The requirement that courts compare requested rates to the state’s attorney rate when fees are awarded against the state may also have been controversial because it could limit judicial discretion or reduce fee recovery in public-interest or constitutional litigation.
Relating to selection of an attorney by an indigent parent as attorney ad litem for the parent in certain suits affecting the parent-child relationship.