Huffman v. Montana Supreme Court: The Federal Case That Exposed Montana's Legal Corruption and Why Nothing Really Changed

By Michael Kelman Portney

The Confession That Should Have Changed Everything

In 1974, the Montana Supreme Court made an extraordinary admission in federal court that should have fundamentally transformed the state's legal system. While defending their practice of automatically admitting University of Montana Law School graduates to the bar without examination, the Court asserted it "could not concede it had no control over the law school." This stunning confession of institutional capture didn't come from critics or reformers – it came from the Supreme Court itself, speaking under oath in federal proceedings.

The case, Huffman v. Montana Supreme Court, 372 F. Supp. 1175 (D. Mont. 1974), represents one of the most explicit acknowledgments of structural corruption in American legal history. Yet fifty years later, Montana's legal system remains dominated by the same conflicts of interest, the same alumni networks, and the same appearance of impropriety that the federal court identified as constitutionally problematic. The only thing that changed was the elimination of the diploma privilege – a cosmetic fix to a systemic disease.

The Original Sin: Diploma Privilege and Institutional Capture

To understand Huffman's significance, we must first understand what Montana was doing before 1974. The state operated under a "diploma privilege" system where graduates of the University of Montana School of Law were automatically admitted to the Montana Bar upon graduation. No bar exam required. No additional vetting necessary. If you graduated from UM Law, you were a Montana lawyer.

Meanwhile, graduates from Harvard, Yale, Stanford – any other law school in America – had to pass Montana's bar exam to practice in the state. This created an obvious constitutional problem: the state was discriminating against out-of-state law graduates in violation of the Equal Protection Clause and the Privileges and Immunities Clause.

Two out-of-state law graduates, Robert Huffman and Richard Trebesch, challenged this system in federal court. They argued that Montana's diploma privilege created an unconstitutional classification that favored UM Law graduates over all others. But during the litigation, something remarkable happened. The Montana Supreme Court, in defending its system, revealed something far more troubling than simple discrimination.

The Damning Admission

When pressed to justify the diploma privilege, the Montana Supreme Court didn't merely argue that UM Law provided superior education or that its graduates were uniquely qualified for Montana practice. Instead, the Court made an assertion that would haunt Montana's legal system for decades: it claimed quasi-supervisory authority over the law school and stated it "could not concede it had no control over the law school."

Think about what this means. The highest court in Montana – the body responsible for attorney discipline, judicial ethics, and the ultimate interpretation of state law – admitted it controlled the only law school in the state. The same institution that was supposed to provide independent judicial review was acknowledging it controlled the pipeline producing all of Montana's lawyers.

This wasn't a slip of the tongue or poorly chosen words in a brief. This was the Montana Supreme Court's legal position, advanced in federal court, to justify its diploma privilege system. The Court was essentially arguing: "We can automatically admit UM Law graduates because we control the law school."

Federal District Judge William J. Jameson found this relationship constitutionally problematic. In his ruling, he determined that the diploma privilege violated equal protection principles and created an improper classification between in-state and out-of-state law graduates. But the remedy was narrow – Montana simply had to eliminate the diploma privilege and require all prospective lawyers, including UM Law graduates, to pass the bar exam.

The Cosmetic Fix That Changed Nothing

Montana complied with the letter of the Huffman ruling. Starting in the late 1970s, UM Law graduates had to pass the bar exam like everyone else. Case closed, problem solved – or so Montana would have everyone believe.

But eliminating the diploma privilege didn't address the fundamental corruption that the Montana Supreme Court had admitted to: the Court's control over and entanglement with the law school. That structural problem – the one the Court couldn't concede it didn't have – remained completely intact.

Consider what didn't change after Huffman:

The Alumni Domination Continues: Today, six of seven Montana Supreme Court Justices are University of Montana Law School graduates. Statistically, this is almost impossible to occur by chance in a fair system. The pipeline from UM Law to the Supreme Court remains as strong as ever.

The Disciplinary System Remains Captured: The Office of Disciplinary Counsel, which investigates attorney misconduct, is staffed primarily by UM Law graduates. The Chief Disciplinary Counsel is a UM Law graduate. The investigators are often UM Law graduates. The Commission on Practice, which reviews disciplinary decisions, is dominated by UM Law graduates.

The Network Protection Persists: When complaints are filed against attorneys, they're investigated by their former classmates, reviewed by their former professors' other students, and ultimately decided by judges who sat in the same lecture halls. The conflicts of interest are not just apparent – they're systemic.

The Structural Entanglement Continues: While the Court no longer claims formal control over the law school, the practical entanglement remains. Justices teach at the law school, serve on committees, attend functions, and maintain deep institutional ties. The "control" the Court couldn't concede it lacked in 1974 has simply gone underground.

Why Huffman's Limited Remedy Failed

The Huffman plaintiffs achieved their narrow goal – they forced Montana to eliminate the discriminatory diploma privilege. But they could only challenge what directly harmed them: the bar admission discrimination. Once Montana started requiring everyone to take the bar exam, the plaintiffs' injury was remedied, and the case ended.

This left the deeper structural corruption untouched. The federal court couldn't order broader reforms because that wasn't the issue before it. Montana did the legal minimum – adding a bar exam requirement – while preserving the entire power structure that the Supreme Court's admission had revealed.

It's like treating a patient's fever while ignoring the underlying infection. The symptom (diploma privilege) was addressed, but the disease (institutional capture) was allowed to spread. Fifty years later, that disease has metastasized throughout Montana's entire legal system.

The Modern Manifestations of Huffman's Unfinished Business

The structural corruption identified in Huffman manifests today in predictable ways:

Self-Investigation Conflicts: When complaints are filed against Office of Disciplinary Counsel staff, complainants are told to file those complaints with... the Office of Disciplinary Counsel itself. There's no neutral intake, no independent review. The office investigates itself, then forwards its own investigation to bodies dominated by the same alumni network.

Inability to Cite Authority: When pressed to identify the rules or statutes governing their procedures, Montana legal officials often cannot cite specific authority. They rely on informal practices, unwritten rules, and "the way things have always been done" – exactly what you'd expect in a system that operates on relationships rather than rules.

Pattern Dismissals: Statistical analysis of disciplinary complaints reveals troubling patterns. Complaints against attorneys connected to the dominant political and alumni networks are disproportionately dismissed. The disciplinary system appears to function less as a neutral arbiter of professional conduct and more as a protection service for the connected.

Procedural Opacity: Basic information about procedures, authority, and accountability remains deliberately opaque. Requests for clarification are met with vague responses or silence. The system resists transparency because transparency would reveal the conflicts of interest that define its operation.

The Federal Question That Remains

Huffman established federal jurisdiction over Montana's structural legal corruption. A federal court found constitutional violations in how Montana organized its legal profession. But the remedy addressed only the specific harm before the court – discrimination in bar admission. The underlying corruption – the Supreme Court's control over the law school and the resulting institutional capture – was never remedied.

This raises a critical question: If new plaintiffs with different injuries caused by the same structural corruption were to return to federal court, could they seek the broader remedy that Huffman couldn't reach?

The answer appears to be yes. New plaintiffs suffering different constitutional injuries – due process violations, First Amendment violations, access to justice denials – would have standing to challenge aspects of the corruption that the Huffman plaintiffs couldn't. They could argue that Montana's cosmetic compliance with Huffman (adding a bar exam) left the underlying constitutional problem intact, and that fifty years of experience proves the inadequacy of the limited remedy.

The Path Not Taken: What Real Reform Would Look Like

Had Montana genuinely addressed the structural corruption revealed in Huffman, what would real reform have looked like?

Mandatory Diversity Requirements: The Supreme Court and disciplinary bodies would be required to include significant representation from out-of-state law schools. No single law school could dominate these institutions.

Independent Oversight: An independent body, with members appointed from outside the Montana legal community, would oversee attorney discipline and judicial conduct.

Neutral Complaint Processes: Complaints against disciplinary staff would be routed to an independent office, not through the subjects of the complaints themselves.

Transparency Requirements: All procedures, rules, and authorities would be clearly documented and publicly available. The informal network governance would be replaced with formal, transparent processes.

Recusal Requirements: Clear, mandatory recusal rules would prevent alumni from investigating or adjudicating matters involving their classmates, former firms, or social connections.

Federal Monitoring: Given the admitted corruption and the failure of self-reform, federal monitoring of Montana's legal system might be appropriate, similar to federal oversight of corrupted police departments.

The Broader Implications: Montana as Cautionary Tale

Montana isn't unique in having only one law school, but it may be unique in having its highest court admit to controlling that law school. Fourteen states have only one ABA-accredited law school, and many face similar risks of institutional capture. But Montana's experience, documented in federal court through Huffman, provides the clearest evidence of what happens when a single law school captures an entire state's legal system.

The lesson from Huffman isn't just about Montana – it's about the danger of allowing any single institution to dominate a state's legal profession. When one law school produces most of the judges, prosecutors, disciplinary counsel, and bar leadership, conflicts of interest become inevitable. The appearance of impropriety becomes so pervasive that it undermines public confidence in the entire system.

The Unfinished Business of Federal Intervention

Huffman represents unfinished federal business. A federal court identified structural corruption in Montana's legal system but could only provide a narrow remedy. The corruption adapted, evolved, and persisted. Fifty years later, the same fundamental problems remain, just with a bar exam requirement added on top.

For those suffering under this corrupted system today – parties whose attorneys refuse to file their evidence, complainants whose grievances are dismissed by the friends of those they're complaining about, citizens whose constitutional rights are violated by a system that protects its own – Huffman provides both explanation and hope.

The explanation is that the system was corrupted from the top, with the Supreme Court's admitted control over the law school creating cascading conflicts of interest throughout the legal system. The hope is that Huffman established federal jurisdiction over this corruption, and that jurisdiction remains available for those with standing to seek the structural remedies that the original plaintiffs couldn't pursue.

Conclusion: The Price of Cosmetic Compliance

Montana's response to Huffman stands as a masterclass in cosmetic compliance – doing the absolute minimum required while preserving the underlying corruption. By adding a bar exam requirement while maintaining every other aspect of the conflicted system, Montana technically complied with the federal court order while completely subverting its spirit.

The price of this cosmetic compliance has been paid by fifty years of Montana citizens who have been denied fair and impartial justice. When your lawyer, your judge, your disciplinary counsel, and your appellate court all graduated from the same law school, attended the same events, and operate within the same social network, justice becomes a matter of who you know rather than what the law requires.

The Montana Supreme Court's 1974 admission that it "could not concede it had no control over the law school" wasn't just a legal argument – it was a confession of structural corruption. That corruption wasn't fixed by requiring a bar exam. It was simply given a veneer of legitimacy while continuing to operate exactly as before.

Until Montana faces the full implications of what its Supreme Court admitted in Huffman – until it implements real structural reforms that create genuine independence between the law school and the legal system – the state will continue to operate under a fundamentally corrupted structure. The federal court identified the disease in 1974. Fifty years later, it's time for the cure.

For those seeking justice in Montana today, Huffman provides both a historical explanation for the corruption they face and a potential legal pathway to challenge it. The federal courthouse door that opened in 1974 was never properly closed. Perhaps it's time for new plaintiffs, with new injuries, to walk through it and demand the structural reforms that Huffman identified as necessary but couldn't itself achieve.

The question isn't whether Montana's legal system needs fundamental reform – the Supreme Court admitted that in 1974. The question is whether it will take another federal intervention to finally accomplish what should have been done fifty years ago: breaking the institutional capture that corrupts Montana justice at its very foundation.

Read more about Justice, Montana Law, philosophy, and more at www.misinformationsucks.com