North Dakota Senate Bill SB2053

North Dakota 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/7/25
• Refer: 1/7/25
• Report Pass: 1/10/25
• Engrossed: 1/13/25
• Refer: 2/13/25
• Report Pass: 3/7/25
• Enrolled: 3/12/25
• Passed: 3/18/25

Caption

AN ACT to amend and reenact section 27-11-17 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to the state bar admission fee.

Summary

SB 2053 amends North Dakota Century Code section 27-11-17 to change the fee structure for applicants seeking admission to the state bar. The bill authorizes the State Board of Law Examiners, with approval of the North Dakota Supreme Court, to set the admission fee for applicants who take the bar examination at up to $200, and the fee for applicants seeking admission on motion at up to $400. The bill leaves the board discretion to determine the exact amount within those caps. The measure is a narrow administrative change focused on professional licensing for attorneys. It does not alter eligibility standards for bar admission, but it does update the statutory fee ceiling and continues to require that all collected fees be deposited and disbursed under existing state financial procedures. The bill was requested by the Supreme Court, indicating it is likely intended to align fees with administrative costs or current court operations.

Impact

SB 2053 directly amends the statute governing bar admission fees, increasing the maximum fee amounts that may be charged to applicants for admission by examination and by motion. It affects the State Board of Law Examiners, bar applicants, and the Supreme Court’s oversight role, while preserving the board’s authority to set the actual fee within the statutory limits. The bill does not change substantive bar admission requirements, but it updates the financial authority tied to attorney licensing and the handling of those revenues under state fiscal law.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have been received favorably and without significant controversy. It passed the Senate 45-1 and the House 83-7, suggesting broad bipartisan support for the fee adjustment. The fact that it was introduced at the request of the Supreme Court also suggests institutional support from the judiciary and the legal licensing system.

Contention

There is little evidence of substantive disagreement in the available record, and no committee transcript indicates debate. The only likely point of contention is the increase in the maximum fee applicants may pay, particularly for those seeking admission on motion, but the strong vote margins suggest any concern was limited. The measure’s narrow scope and administrative nature likely reduced opposition.