DOCSLIB.ORG

2011 April Montana Lawyer

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2011 April Montana Lawyer April 2011 THE MONTANA Volume 36, No. 6 awyerTHE STATE BAR OF MONTANA L © Kelpfish - Fotolia.com Important new court orders Civility matters Limited-scope representation given a stamp of approval Rules of civil procedure and conduct are amended to handle ‘unbundling’ Justices define practice of law A fix for those hostile opposing attorneys Three attorneys Bar nomination forms inside are disciplined President-Elect Secretary-Treasurer Trustee Jameson Access to Justice Pro Bono Social media no-no Lawyers doing research shouldn’t disguise themselves as Internet ‘friends’ State Bar of Montana THE MONTANA LAWYER APRIL INDEX Published every month except January and July by the State Bar of Montana, 7 W. Sixth Ave., Suite 2B, P.O. Box 577, Helena MT 59624. Phone (406) 442-7660; Fax (406) 442-7763. Cover Story E-mail: [email protected] The “Civility Matters” venture in Montana 10 STATE BAR OFFICERS President Joseph M. Sullivan, Great Falls President-Elect Features Shane Vannatta, Missoula Secretary-Treasurer When lawyers troll for Internet ‘friends’ 25 K. Paul Stahl, Helena Immediate Past President Cynthia K. Smith, Missoula Chair of the Board Randall Snyder, Bigfork Commentary Board of Trustees President’s Message: new mentoring methods 4 Pam Bailey, Billings Pamela Bucy, Helena Let’s restore freedom of contract to MT Code 27 Darcy Crum, Great Falls Ellen Donohue, Anaconda Vicki W. Dunaway, Billings Leslie Halligan, Missoula Jason Holden, Great Falls Legislature Thomas Keegan, Helena Jane Mersen, Bozeman Bills the Bar is closely monitoring 5 Olivia Norlin, Glendive Mark D. Parker, Billings Ryan Rusche, Wolf Point Randall Snyder, Bigfork State Bar News Bruce Spencer, Helena Matthew Thiel, Missoula Lynda White, Bozeman Nomination forms explained 12 Tammy Wyatt-Shaw, Missoula Office & trustee petition form 13 ABA Delegate Damon L. Gannett, Billings Jameson Award nomination form 14 Karla Gray Access to Justice Award form 15 THE MONTANA LAWYER Publisher Neil Haight Pro Bono Award form 15 Christopher L. Manos, Executive Director Editor Lawyers’ Fund claims for 2010 12 Charles Wood (406) 447-2200; fax: 442-7763 e-mail: [email protected] Winners of Bar survey gift cards 12 SUBSCRIPTIONS are a benefit of State Bar mem- State Bar Calendar 21 bership; others purchase a year’s subscription for $40, pre-paid. Third Class postage paid at Helena MT 59601. Courts ADVERTISING RATES are available upon request. Orders OK limited-scope representation 6 Statements and expressions of opinion appearing here- in are those of the advertisers or authors and do not Order defines practice of law 9 necessarily reflect the views of the State Bar of Montana. Discipline 22 POSTMASTER: Send address changes to Montana Lawyer, P.O.Box 577, Helena MT 59624. Regular Features Upcoming CLEs 17 State Bar Bookstore 18 News About Members 28 Deaths 29 Copyright 2011 State Bar of Montana Printed in Billings Classifieds 30 at Artcraft Printers PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE New methods of mentoring The future of the Bar, Part II Joe Sullivan n my last message I did two things. First, I left you in So how does this impact mentoring? suspense as to suggested new and different approaches First, we cannot expect individuals who have grown up I toward mentoring. Second, I asked for input from you listening to, reading, and evaluating multiple sources of as to mentoring – a good or bad idea, suggestions as to what input to be satisfied with a single source of information should be in a program, your willingness to participate. found in a one-on-one mentoring system. This is where, as I I will address the last of these two first. I did not receive mentioned in my prior message, Randy Emelo of Triple a single response to my request for input. That tells me one Creek Enterprise Mentoring Systems politely suggested this of two things: either no one reads the President’s Message traditional type of mentoring is outdated. or mentoring is just not a hot-button issue. If it is not, my Second, we need to present mentoring through a medium focus needs to be letting you know what new ideas are out and via a methodology that accommodates the learning there and see if that creates interest. skills and techniques of that learner. If the learner is accus- That segues back to the first issue – new approaches tomed to collaborative learning, the mentoring program toward mentoring, on current studies on adult learning. should work in a collaborative method. If the learner is Think about how we learn and make decisions. How has accustomed to using Facebook or other social media to cre- that changed over the last 30 years? For most, our news ate collaborative methodology, we should look to see if sources have gone from one local newspaper and three such a medium could be used. national television networks to endless online news sources This is already happening. It has been developed and and multiple dedicated TV news channels. Many businesses refined in some of the world’s largest corporations. The have shifted from a top-down military type chain of com- challenge is adapting current mentoring technology to legal mand to a more collaborative group approach to problem mentoring, and, more specifically, to the needs of Montana solving and development. How many of us have watched a attorneys. The approach is subject-based and is not limited student work on three subjects while researching and com- to just new attorneys. municating both on their laptop and their smart phone in a As an example, you start with deciding on several areas collaborative effort with multiple fellow students? Today, of legal practice in which attorneys have expressed a need – when a student is deciding on an important issue such as how to take a better deposition, how to deal with difficult college, he often receives input not only from mom and opposing attorneys, what district courts would prefer to see dad, but from stepmom, stepdad, four grandparents, and occur before them, client-control techniques, best billing potentially four stepgrandparents. practices, what makes for the best professional atmosphere Our learning processes have shifted as our sources of and why it is important, etc. Similar to a CLE presenter, a information have increased. In general, the younger the person with knowledge and willingness to share that knowl- individual the more skilled they are at absorbing, sorting, edge (high intellectual capital) is chosen to address each and prioritizing input. This is not to say that the decision issue. Attorneys are invited to review the list and choose made as a result is better, but there tends to be a shift from one or more topic in which they have an interest. A web finding the “right” answer to finding the best answer out of page is set up with a structure similar to Facebook (a famil- multiple choices. iar medium), is run by the person with the high intellectual A consequence of this shift to greater information is the capital and is participated in by those who have chosen that value given a person as a quality information source and topic. An ongoing discussion is conducted which allows one’s ability and willingness to share that information. If participants to ask questions and discuss specific issue as a you have ever been on a blog, you have seen how regular group over time. This allows participants to join in at times contributors have a rating given to them by others who read which are convenient. It also allows those spread over a the contributor’s material. This is referred to as intellectual large geographic area like Montana to participate without capital, and is foreseen as one of the key future factors in having mileage as a factor. Further, although there is one evaluating the worth of any individual to a business, person assigned to lead the ongoing discussion, often others whether as an employee or an outside contractor. have insights. The result is everyone learns. The discus- PAGE 4 THE MONTANA LAWYER APRIL 2011 2011 LEGISLATURE The status of Bar-watched bills As of March 25, the State Bar was still following 17 bills in cies procure the services of private attorneys. The bill was the Montana Legislature. Two of the bills, supported by the passed by House and sent to Senate. State Bar, recently were passed by the Legislature and signed into law by the governor. They are: HB 601, revising business and labor law to limit the use of SB 21, authorizing a district court to dismiss a civil credit history in employment, was tabled in a House commit- action for lack of prosecution after a period of time. State Bar tee. The State Bar is interested because credit history is part of supported this bill. lawyer character and fitness checks. SB 41, allowing a city to establish a city court of record; providing that appeals from a city court of record are on the HB 634 generally revises laws relating to data privacy. A record and not de novo. Bar supported. hearing was held in a House committee. The bills closely followed by the Bar benefit the judicial system and/or the practice of law as a whole. They are tracked Senate Bill 175 would ask Montana voters to amend the daily on the Bill Watch List at www.montanabar.org. Links to State Constitution to change the selection of Supreme Court each bill’s text and other details can be found on the list. and district court judges to a merit-based appointment system, As of March 25, here is how other Bar-watched bills fared: from the current election system. Appointments would be fol- lowed by judicial performance evaluations and retention elec- House Bill 2, that funds state government, including the tions.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Legislative Council Report on the Montana Constitution
    HKI'ORT \l MBER 6 STATE DOCUMENTS Montana Constitutional Convention Occasional Papers ^XtLTlQv^ Legislative Council Report on the Montana /97,.,9lX Constitution PreparedBy: Montana Constitutional Convention Com,tnis8ion MONTANA STATE LIBRARY S342 0cpa6C72Lc.1 Report on the Montana constitution. 3 0864 00006642 6 •MONTANA CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION 1971-1972 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL REPORT ON THE MONTANA CONSTITUTION CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OCCASIONAL PAPER NO. 6 PREPARED BY MONTANA CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION COMMISSION 1 MONTANA CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION COMMISSION COMMISSION MEMBERS Chairman Vice-chairman ALEXANDER BLEWETT EUGENE H. MAHONEY Great Falls Thompson Falls CHARLES A. BOVEY JACK E. BRENNER Great Falls Grant MRS. FIRMAN H. BROWN ARTHUR C. HAGENSTON Missoula Gl endive CHARLES L. HARRINGTON CLYDE L. HAWKS But te St. Xavier C. EUGENE PHILLIPS CLYDE A. RADER Kalispe 1 Hardin R. H. "TY" ROBINSON LEONARD A. SCHULZ Missoula Di I Ion WILLIAM G. STERNHAGEN RANDALL SWANBERG Helena Great Falls BRUCE R. TOOLE DR. ELLIS WALDRON Bi llings Missoula COMMISSION STAFF DALE A. HARRIS JERRY R. HOLLORON Executive Director Assistant Director ROGER A. BARBER SANDRA R. MUCKELSTON Counsel Counsel P. RICK APPLEGATE KAREN D. BECK Research Analyst Research Analyst RICHARD F. BECHTEL NANCY M. MALEE Research Analyst Research Analyst BARTLEY 0. CARSON KAREN C. NYBERG Executive Secretary Secretary juAnita fontana GINNY WATERMAN Secretary Secretary PREFACE The delegates to the 1971-1972 Montana Constitutional Convention will need historical, legal and comparative information about the Montana Constitution. Recognizing this need, the 1971 Legislative Assembly created the Constitutional Convention Commission and directed it to assemble and prepare essential information for the Convention. To fulfill this responsibility, the Constitutional Convention Commission is preparing a series of research reports under the general title of Constitutional Convention Studies.
    [Show full text]
  • Da 11-0460 in the Supreme Court of the State Of
    September 11 2012 DA 11-0460 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2012 MT 201 MONTANA CANNABIS INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION, MARK MATTHEWS, SHIRLEY HAMP, SHELLY YEAGER, JANE DOE, JOHN DOE #1, JOHN DOE #2, MICHAEL GECI-BLACK, M.D., JOHN STOWERS, M.D., POINT HATFIELD, and CHARLIE HAMP, Plaintiffs, Appellees, and Cross-Appellants, v. STATE OF MONTANA, Defendant, Appellant, and Cross-Appellee. APPEAL FROM: District Court of the First Judicial District, In and For the County of Lewis and Clark, Cause No. DDV 11-518 Honorable James P. Reynolds, Presiding Judge COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: Steve Bullock, Montana Attorney General; James P. Molloy (argued), J. Stuart Segrest, Assistant Attorneys General, Helena, Montana For Appellees: James H. Goetz (argued); J. Devlan Geddes; Goetz, Gallik & Baldwin, P.C., Bozeman, Montana Argued and Submitted: May 30, 2012 Decided: September 11, 2012 Filed: __________________________________________ Clerk Justice Michael E Wheat delivered the Opinion of the Court. ¶1 The State of Montana (“State”) appeals from an order preliminarily enjoining parts of the Montana Marijuana Act, § 50-46-301 et seq., MCA. Montana Cannabis Industry Association, Mark Matthews, Shirley Hamp, Shelly Yeager, Jane Doe, John Doe #1, John Doe #2, Michael Geci-Black, John Stowers, Point Hatfield, and Charlie Hamp (collectively “the Plaintiffs”) cross-appeal from the same order. We reverse and remand. BACKGROUND ¶2 In 2004, Montana voters approved the use of medical marijuana through the passage of I-148, the Medical Marijuana Act. The 2004 Medical Marijuana Act left in place those provisions in the Montana criminal code that make it illegal to cultivate, possess, distribute or use marijuana, while simultaneously protecting authorized users of medical marijuana from being prosecuted.
    [Show full text]
  • 3:17 P.M. Rep. Rick Jore, Vice Chairman (Majority) (R) Rep
    MINUTES MONTANA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 54th LEGISLATURE - REGULAR SESSION COMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS & TRANSPORTATION Call to Order: By VICE CHAIRMAN RICK JORE, on March -1, 1995, at 3:17 p.m. ROLL CALL Members Present: Rep. Rick Jore, Vice Chairman (Majority) (R) Rep. Patrick G. Galvin, Vice Chairman (Minority) (D) Rep. Joe Barnett (R) Rep. Matt Brainard (R) Rep. Robert C. Clark (R) Rep. Charles R. Devaney (R) Rep. Marian W. Hanson (R) Rep. Don Larson (D) Rep. Rod Marshall (R) Rep. Linda McCulloch (D) Rep. Daniel W. McGee (R) Rep. Jeanette S. McKee (R) Rep. William M. "Bill" Ryan (D) Rep. Roger Somerville (R) Rep. Joe Tropila (D) Rep. Jack Wells (R) Members Excused: Chairman Shiell Anderson (R) Members Absent: Rep. Dore Schwinden (D) Staff Present: Connie Erickson, Legislative Council Kim Greenough, Committee Secretary Please Note: These are summary minutes. Testimony and discussion are paraphrased and condensed. Committee Business Summary: Hearings: SB 268 SB 181 SB 114 SB 103 Executive Action: None {Tape: ~; Side: ~; Approx. Counter: O~O; C01IlIIlents: None.} 950301HI. HM1 HOUSE HIGHWAYS & TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE March I, 1995 Page 2 of 8 HEARING ON SB 268 Opening Statement by Sponsor: SEN. DON HARGROVE, Senate District 16, Belgrade, stated that SB 268 would address the snowmobile' license laws. He said the bill would allow a young person to go through a training course to allow them to be eligible to ride snowmobiles in certain areas. Proponents' Testimony: Ken Hoovestol, Montana Snowmobile Association, stated that current law allows local governments to make the determination for the licensing of individuals on snowmobiles in their areas.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Supreme Court of the State of Montana
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA AF 06-0377 _________________ IN THE MATTER OF ADOPTING RULES FOR PUBLIC ACCESS AND PRIVACY TO COURT O R D E R RECORDS IN MONTANA _________________ Judy Meadows, State Law Librarian, and Karen Nelson, Director of Information Technology, Office of the Supreme Court Administrator, have filed in this matter a Petition to Amend and Extend Implementation Deadline for the Rules for Public Access and Privacy to Court Records in Montana (Rules). The Petition notes that as part of the Court’s education efforts with respect to the Rules under Section 8.30, it is apparent that Section 4.5(c) of the rules is confusing. The Petition requests that the first line of this section be amended to read: Unless required to be made public, the following information is not available without leave of the court: The Petition indicates that this minor change in wording will assist in the general understanding of the Rules and their implementation. The Petition also represents that recent educational efforts have demonstrated that the courts and clerks of courts are not yet ready to implement the rules and that there is particular difficulty in applying Section 4.5’s restrictions for Social Security numbers, full birthdates, financial account numbers and minor’s full names. Although frequently not required by statute, and thus restricted under the new Rules, there are numerous current court forms that require this data. Accordingly, the Petition suggests that this Court delay implementation of the Rules until July 1, 2008. the Petition contemplates a sixty (60) day comment period in 1 which courts, clerks of courts and attorneys will address the Taskforce on public access to privacy and court records in Montana with specific concerns about forms and processes that will need to be amended to comply with Section 4.5(c).
    [Show full text]
  • This Is the Courtwatch Manual Developed by the Montana
    MCADSV Courtwatch Training Manual TTTHHHEEE MMOOONNNTTTAAANNNAAA CCCOOOAAALLLIIITTTIIIOOONNN AAAGGGAAAIIINNNSSSTTT DDDOOOMMMEEESSSTTTIIICCC AAANNNDDD SSEEEXXXUUUAAALLL VVVIIIOOOLLLEEENNNCCCEEE CCCOOOUUURRRTTTWWWAAATTTCCCHHH TTTRRRAAAIIINNNIIINNNGGG MMMAAANNNUUUAAALLL © MCADSV 2007 This project is supported by the grant # 2004 MUAX 0048, awarded by the US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. Points of view in this manual are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. MCADSV Courtwatch Training Manual COURTWATCH TABLE OF CONTENTS IINTRODUCTIONNTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 4 AACKNOWLEDGEMENTSCKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................................... 5 BBACKGROUND:ACKGROUND: CCOURTWATCHOURTWATCH DDEFINEDEFINED......................................................................... 7 HHISTORYISTORY OOFF MMCADSVCADSV CCOURTWATCHOURTWATCH MMANUALANUAL........................................................... 9 DEVELOPING A COURTWATCH PROGRAM..................................................................... 12 Creating the Program ...........................................................................................................................13 Strategic Planning ................................................................................................................................14
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court of the United States ______JAMES K
    No. 18-6135 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States __________ JAMES K. KAHLER, Petitioner, v. STATE OF KANSAS, Respondent. __________ On Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Kansas __________ BRIEF OF AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION, AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION, AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PSYCHIATRY AND THE LAW, THE JUDGE DAVID L. BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW, AND MENTAL HEALTH AMERICA AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER __________ DAVID W. OGDEN AARON M. PANNER PAUL R.Q. WOLFSON Counsel of Record ALEXANDRA STEWART KEVIN D. HORVITZ WILMER CUTLER PICKERING MICHAEL S. QIN HALE AND DORR LLP KELLOGG, HANSEN, TODD, 1875 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. FIGEL & FREDERICK, Washington, D.C. 20006 P.L.L.C. (202) 663-6000 1615 M Street, N.W. Suite 400 NATHALIE F.P. GILFOYLE Washington, D.C. 20036 DEANNE M. OTTAVIANO (202) 326-7900 AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ([email protected]) ASSOCIATION Counsel for American 750 First Street, N.E. Psychiatric Association Washington, D.C. 20002 and American Academy of (202) 336-5500 Psychiatry and the Law Counsel for American Psychological Association June 7, 2019 (Additional Counsel Listed On Inside Cover) IRA ABRAHAM BURNIM JENNIFER MATHIS BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW 1101 15th Street, N.W. Suite 1212 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 467-5730 Counsel for The Judge David L. Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law MARK J. HEYRMAN CLINICAL PROFESSOR OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LAW SCHOOL 1111 East 60th Street Chicago, Illinois 60637 (773) 702-9611 Counsel for Mental Health America TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...................................... iii INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ...............................
    [Show full text]
  • Montana Courts Annual Report of the Montana Judicial System Calendar Year 1994
    - MONTANA COURTS ANNUAL REPORT OF THE MONTANA JUDICIAL SYSTEM CALENDAR YEAR 1994 J. A. TURNAGE CHIEF JUSTICE A PUBLICATION OF THE OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR ROOM 315, JUSTICE BUILDING 215 NORTH SANDERS HELENA, MT 59620 State of the Judiciary Address by Honorable J. A. Turnage Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court to a Joint Session of the Fifty-Fourth Legislature January 27, 1995 President Brown, Speaker Mercer, members of the Senate and House, distinguished public officials, staff of the Fifty-fourth Legislature and guests, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for this honor and privilege to address this joint session of the Fifty- fourth Legislature. 1 would like to take this time to highlight some of the Judiciary's workload, accomplishments and its concerns. Before doing so, 1 think it appropriate to review some history and constitutional provisions that have placed the Judiciary of the State of Montana as a distinct and separate branch of Montana government with the Legislative and Executive branches. The great charter of liberties of King John, the Magna Charta, granted at Runingmede, June 15, 1215, a charter of freedom for the individual, separated the of total power over citizens then concentrated in the hands of the king, and gave to individual citizens a voice in the control over their lives and liberties. This topic of separation of powers is as important to the Legislative branch of government, as it is to the Judicial and Executive branches. James Madison, a principal author of the Constitution of the United States, expressed it eloquently when he wrote: "The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judicial, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny." Madison's admonition found its way into the Constitution of the United States and is found in Articles 1, II and flf.
    [Show full text]
  • SCOTUS & Personal Jurisdiction: Ford V. Montana and Ford V. Bandemere
    Media Clip Compilation SCOTUS & Personal Jurisdiction: Ford v. Montana and Ford v. Bandemere https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2020/10/07/Shorthanded-Supreme-Court-hears-Google- Oracle-fight-Ford-cases/4001602073011/ Shorthanded Supreme Court hears Google-Oracle fight, Ford cases By Don Jacobson UPI.com October 7, 2020 A shorthanded U.S. Supreme Court, now in its new term, will hear cases Wednesday involving three high-profile companies -- tech giant Google, software maker Oracle and auto conglomerate Ford Motor Co. The high court opened its new term Monday with just eight justices and a 5-3 conservative majority following the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg last month. Experts say two disputes on the docket Wednesday could have wide-ranging implications for how software is developed and how manufacturers are held liable for injuries connected with their products. Arguments in all three cases -- Google vs. Oracle America, Ford Motor Co. vs. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court and Ford Motor Co. v. Bandemer -- will be heard virtually. In the case of Google and Oracle, which has been in courts for years, the two companies are fighting over the software code used by Google to develop its Android smartphone operating system. Oracle argues that its Java application programming interface is intellectual property protected by copyright. Google contends that the interface is not a creative work that warrants copyright protection, but rather falls into "fair use" territory as a technical, functional platform. Google is appealing a 2018 federal appellate court decision that found the Java interface is not subject to fair use -- a decision that's alarmed software developers as a potential roadblock to innovation in a vital industry.
    [Show full text]
  • Enforcement – District Court Guide Table of Contents
    ENFORCEMENT – DISTRICT COURT GUIDE TABLE OF CONTENTS General Information and Enforcement Overview ......................................................................2 Water Right Enforcement Overview ............................................................................................3 General Order of Proceedings .....................................................................................................6 Letter From Water Court ..............................................................................................................7 District Court Forms .....................................................................................................................8 Note regarding Enforcement Forms .............................................................................................9 Request for Enforcement Tabulation .........................................................................................10 Order Granting Petition and Appointing Water Commissioner ................................................12 Statement for Delivery of Water ................................................................................................15 Water Commissioner Filings and Information .........................................................................16 Water Commissioner Bond ........................................................................................................17 Oath of Sureties .........................................................................................................................18
    [Show full text]
  • Western Legal History
    WESTERN LEGAL HISTORY THE JOURNAL OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT HISTORICAL SOCIETY VOLUME 2, NUMBER 2 SUMMER/FALL 1989 Western Legal History is published semi-annually, in spring and fall, by the Ninth judicial Circuit Historical Society, 620 S. W Main Street, Room 703, Portland, Oregon 97205, (503) 326-3458. The journal explores, analyzes, and presents the history of law, the legal profession, and the courts - particularly the federal courts - in Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. Western Legal History is sent to members of the Society as well as members of affiliated legal historical societies in the Ninth Circuit. Membership is open to all. Membership dues (individuals and institutions): Patron, $1,000 or more; Steward, $750-$999; Sponsor, $500-749; Grantor, $250-$499; Sustaining, $100-$249; Advocate, $50-$99; Subscribing (non- members of the bench and bar, attorneys in practice fewer than five years, libraries, and academic institutions), $25-$49. Membership dues (law firms and corporations): Founder $3,000 or more; Patron $1,000-$2,999: Steward, $750-$999; Sponsor, $500-$749; Grantor, $250-$499. For information regarding membership, back issues of Western Legal History, and other Society publications and programs, please write or telephone. POSTMASTER: Please send change of address to: Editor Western Legal History 620 S. W. Main Street Room 703 Portland, Oregon 97205 Western Legal History disclaims responsibility for statements made by authors and for accuracy of footnotes. Copyright by the Ninth Judicial Circuit Historical Society. ISSN 0896-2189. The Editorial Board welcomes unsolicited manuscripts, books for review, reports on research in progress, and recommendations for the journal.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court of the United States ------♦ ------FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Petitioner, V
    Nos. 19-368 and 19-369 ================================================================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- ♦ --------------------------------- FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Petitioner, v. MONTANA EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, et al., Respondents. --------------------------------- ♦ --------------------------------- FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Petitioner, v. ADAM BANDEMER, Respondent. --------------------------------- ♦ --------------------------------- On Writs Of Certiorari To Supreme Court Of Montana And The Supreme Court Of Minnesota --------------------------------- ♦ --------------------------------- BRIEF OF PROFESSORS OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AND FEDERAL COURTS AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS --------------------------------- ♦ --------------------------------- LINDA SANDSTROM SIMARD CASSANDRA BURKE ROBERTSON Counsel of Record JOHN DEAVER DRINKO— SUFFOLK UNIVERSITY BAKERHOSTETLER LAW SCHOOL PROFESSOR OF LAW 120 Tremont Street DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR Boston, MA 01867 PROFESSIONAL ETHICS 617-573-8087 CASE WESTERN RESERVE [email protected] UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW 11075 East Boulevard CHARLES W. R HODES Cleveland, OH 44106 SOUTH TEXAS COLLEGE 216-368-3302 OF LAW HOUSTON 1303 San Jacinto Street Houston, TX 77002 713-646-2918 [email protected] ================================================================================================================ COCKLE LEGAL BRIEFS (800) 225-6964 WWW.COCKLELEGALBRIEFS.COM i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE
    [Show full text]
  • Rules for the Regulation of the Practice of Law in the Courts of Montana by Attorneys at Law
    RULES FOR THE REGULATION OF THE PRACTICE OF ~ Rule Section LAW IN THE COURTS OF MONTANA BY ATTORNEYS AT LAW IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. AF 10-0212 IN RE: THE ADOPTION OF RULES FOR THE ) REGULATION OF THE PRACTICE OF LAW ) O R D E R IN THE COURTS OF MONTANA BY ATTORNEYS ) AT LAW In furtherance of our power and duty under Article VII, Section 2(3) of the Constitution of the State of Montana to make rules governing the practice and procedure before the courts of this state and the conduct of the members of the State Bar of Montana, we now adopt the attached Rules for the Regulation of the Practice of Law in the Courts of Montana by Attorneys at Law. These rules are effective as of the date of this order. The attached Rules shall be posted on the Court’s website. In addition, the Clerk is directed to provide copies of this order and the attached Rules to: the State Bar of Montana, with the request that the Rules be published in the next available issue of the Deskbook; Thomson-Reuters, with the request that the Rules be published in the next available edition of the Montana Rules of Court; and the Montana Legislative Services Division. DATED this 1st day of March, 2011 . /S/ MIKE MCGRATH /S/ JAMES C. NELSON /S/ BETH BAKER /S/ PATRICIA COTTER /S/ BRIAN MORRIS /S/ MICHEAL E WHEAT /S/ JIM RICE Having dissolved the Commission on the Unauthorized Practice of Law,1 this Court concludes that it is necessary and appropriate that we exercise our Constitutional power under Article VII, Section 2(3) to make rules governing the practice and procedure before the courts of this state and the conduct of the members of the State Bar of Montana.
    [Show full text]