AN ACT to amend and reenact sections 27-02.2-01, 27-02.2-02, 27-02.2-03, 27-02.2-04, 27-02.2-05, 27-02.2-06, 27-02.2-09, 27-02.2-10, and 27-02.2-11 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to the attorney recruitment and retention program.
SB 2211 revises North Dakota’s attorney recruitment and retention assistance program, which is designed to help rural counties and small municipalities attract and keep licensed attorneys. The bill keeps the program under Supreme Court administration and updates the eligibility, selection, and payment rules for participating local governments and attorneys.
Under the bill, counties with populations of 16,000 or fewer and municipalities with populations of 5,000 or fewer may apply to participate if they agree to share in the incentive payment and are approved by the Supreme Court. In selecting participants, the Court may consider factors such as local demographics, the age and number of attorneys in the area, the presiding judge’s recommendation, economic development activity, geography, and prior participation. Attorneys selected for the program must practice full-time in the chosen county or municipality for at least five consecutive years, and no more than eight attorneys may participate at one time.
The bill amends multiple sections of Chapter 27-02.2 of the North Dakota Century Code to refine how the attorney recruitment and retention program operates. It sets the attorney incentive payment at $45,000 paid in five annual installments, requires the local government to cover 35 percent of the payment, and allows the state bar association, bar foundation, or another legal association to contribute 15 percent of each installment. It also continues the program fund as a continuing appropriation to the judicial branch and preserves repayment and discipline consequences if an attorney breaches the agreement. The bill further bars individuals who have already participated in this or similar service-based scholarship or loan-repayment programs from participating again.
The bill appears to have broad legislative support, passing the Senate 45-2 and the House 73-17. The vote totals suggest general agreement with the goal of improving access to legal services in underserved parts of the state and strengthening rural attorney recruitment. The absence of committee transcript material limits insight into detailed debate, but the strong margins indicate the measure was largely viewed favorably.
The main points of potential contention are the cost-sharing structure, the use of public funds for attorney incentives, and the program’s eligibility limits. Some lawmakers may have been concerned about whether smaller counties and municipalities can afford their required share, whether the state should subsidize private attorneys in this way, and whether the five-year service commitment and cap of eight participants are sufficient to address rural legal shortages. The narrower House margin compared with the Senate suggests there may have been more skepticism in the House, though the bill still passed comfortably.