Revise laws relating to attorney fees and costs based on legislative conduct
The enactment of HB 365 amends Section 25-10-711 of the Montana Code Annotated, which addresses issues related to the award of costs and fees in civil actions. By excluding legislative conduct from bad faith analyses, the bill effectively provides additional protection for government entities against financial penalties related to their legislative actions. This change could alter the dynamics of how legal challenges against the state are approached, making it more challenging for plaintiffs to argue that legislative conduct contributes to a finding of bad faith.
House Bill 365 seeks to revise the criteria for awarding costs and attorney fees in civil actions involving the state, its political subdivisions, or agencies. A significant aspect of this bill is that it explicitly states that legislative conduct shall not be considered in the analysis of bad faith. This means that if the state or a local government entity is found to be acting in bad faith or frivolously in legal matters, the passage of legislation by the legislature governing the entity would not be admissible as evidence against them in such matters.
The general sentiment surrounding HB 365 appears to be supportive among legislators who see it as strengthening the legal immunity and operational independence of the legislative branch. However, critics may view this as a means to shield the government from accountability. The discussions indicate a divide between those prioritizing legislative protection and those advocating greater checks on government actions in civil litigation, reflecting broader tensions in balancing authority and accountability within the state.
A notable point of contention regarding HB 365 is its implications for accountability in government. Proponents argue that removing legislative conduct from bad faith considerations is necessary for legislative stability, asserting that legislators should not be punished for their lawful policy decisions. On the other hand, opponents may argue that this change undermines the ability of individuals to seek justice against the government, raising concerns about an erosion of protections for citizens engaging in legal actions against state entities.