[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6325064,"mediaKeyId","2334944-981066903e7dc1388e5e90089e14799f","parentId",2334944,"title","Committee reconsiders Senate Bill 2054 and defers further action to next meeting","audioSeconds",236,"startMs",3735000,"endMs",3971000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2334944-981066903e7dc1388e5e90089e14799f&start=3735&end=3971","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2334944-981066903e7dc1388e5e90089e14799f/thumbnail_3735000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6325064/North-Dakota/Committee-reconsiders-Senate-Bill-2054-and-defers-further-action-to-next-meeting","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6325064-a769b8f9c57e60fd9f00ca506898659e/orig.mp4?Expires=1771167915&Signature=cque-mrwvBmo2-73ekOAUBRPMHcx0uHGOJxAJXqcog0dS3QanTDdwIHJB5vtW-hXlWm7pgJjn~m~xg~6chVL9CraXfo-epjbSfpWfa9uU9Nb7cKoDQoJ9wCCcoxu4KVV1cHfvGRa3Yvn~5hcqnbTY2nzKc0sVwgWc5g4BBHt~hd83OyLoAM7NUmNOegrBwogB8B1QO2UO85EnbNk7lXH99yhvygpohYjDPnSUyuXuy8lLB7xbvDsPs5F6XjD-t6vlTXHLaERJ83IoBsKTpUjA~R76W2fDaKRRpSXmc6tSQCyqOcj~wuQSvztPyAntkfm0L50WJJj4xFEMCK7gJq49Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","North Dakota State Legislature","date","2025-02-18T00:00:00Z","article","The committee voted to reconsider prior action on Senate Bill 2054 and postponed further consideration of proposed amendments until the next meeting.

Representative Olson moved to reconsider the committee's prior action on Senate Bill 2054; Representative Van Winkle seconded the motion. The roll call on the reconsideration recorded 11 votes in favor and 3 opposed, carrying the motion. Committee members said they lacked sufficient time before the floor session and that discussing the amendments would take longer than available; the chair instructed staff to defer the amendments and pick them up the following day.

Chairman Clamine closed the day's work on the bill, saying the committee would \"defer any further action on Senate Bill 2054 until tomorrow.\" No amendments were adopted at that session; committee staff were tasked with preparing documents for the next meeting.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Judiciary Tuesday, Feb 18, 2025 3:05 PM - 4:11 PM","oneSentenceSummary","The House Judiciary Committee granted a motion to reconsider action on Senate Bill 2054 by an 11‑3 vote and agreed to defer consideration of proposed amendments until the next committee meeting to allow staff time and due notice.","taxTitle","Judiciary, House of Representatives, Legislative, North Dakota","taxId",28895,"location","North Dakota","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6325068,"Committee splits on apprenticeship path to the bar; amendment passed but bill fails in committee",1404,2110000,3514000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2334944-981066903e7dc1388e5e90089e14799f&start=2110&end=3514","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2334944-981066903e7dc1388e5e90089e14799f/thumbnail_2110000.jpg","/articles/6325068/North-Dakota/Committee-splits-on-apprenticeship-path-to-the-bar-amendment-passed-but-bill-fails-in-committee","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6325068-c3927a12f2ee8f43a542935030ab862f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771167915&Signature=IG11WWtFmAt6ANmX5Jw-r1hRPvr3qw5RBN7r2w9PfgzhpzosNsnK9jV1kMnf38ddsilE8TAJlLPORw3j5HQ1x34jp3f6toT~6xyuF85897oJ~eXtCF8M8li5xIo45mCS-3HUwuLUurG0v1L~4oQCAl3rr--KOJ~P5iK6sTlIh9k2Cxu1G-uB14MZwi5Cqp0dPrKXgucVzFsz~NYghxhbWJpsrZhQ4qbcy8qdFicgCXl9eqRH~XIaZF6wV5gMNI-ow7cahy56j7gxXtJcZYO5H2fExrXr5EI-UqXFT8sg0T8uQZFoXT8jK22Yl2DucF9JLLjQitsrZ0Mh6jP4oT0CJA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","House Bill 16‑09, which would require the Supreme Court in cooperation with the state board of law examiners to develop an apprenticeship path to sit for the bar exam, generated extended debate on whether life experience and supervised practice can substitute for law school.

Proponents cited other states with alternative routes to the bar. Representative Van Winkle listed several examples, saying that in \"California you can take the bar exam without attending law school,\" that \"Washington...you just need an apprenticeship program,\" and that other states permit various alternative paths. He described the proposal as an effort \"to create an opportunity for a career that's in high demand\" and as a way to expand the pool of lawyers for underserved areas.

Several members supported counting practical experience toward qualification; Representative Better suggested a legislative pathway as an example, saying he would \"hog house this bill and make it basically make it so 8 years of service in the legislature equals 20 credits at the UND law school.\" Opponents pressed concerns about academic rigor and public trust. Representative Schneider said the bill was \"not well thought out or planned or detailed enough,\" adding that law school provides a discipline and rigor \"you can't get any place besides law school.\"

The committee voted to amend the bill by removing text on page 2, lines 5–6 (the portion that would have treated certain legislators differently). The amendment carried 10‑4. After adopting the amendment, a motion for a \"do pass as amended\" was called; the roll call recorded six votes in favor and eight opposed, so the committee did not recommend passage. Representative Twyte later moved that the bill be studied; the committee did not finalize a study directive that day but agreed to revisit the measure and possible study language at a subsequent meeting.

Committee discussion included points that the bill, as written, would require a bachelor’s degree plus 2,000 hours of supervised engagement under a licensed attorney (as described on the bill's draft), and that the Supreme Court and board of law examiners would set program standards. Supporters said the apprenticeship would be supervised and that other states have implemented similar pathways. Opponents said an academic program provides essential doctrinal training and that substitution of life experience could leave gaps in a candidate's legal education.

The committee took no further floor action that day.","House Bill 16‑09, proposing a Supreme Court‑developed apprenticeship pathway to bar admission, drew lengthy debate. The committee approved an amendment to remove a provision allowing certain legislators to sit for the bar but then voted down a \"do pass\" recommendation 8‑6; members agreed to consider further study.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6325073,"House Judiciary Committee votes to recommend 'do not pass' on bill that would broadly define 'interest'",1548,727000,2275000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2334944-981066903e7dc1388e5e90089e14799f&start=727&end=2275","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2334944-981066903e7dc1388e5e90089e14799f/thumbnail_727000.jpg","/articles/6325073/North-Dakota/House-Judiciary-Committee-votes-to-recommend-do-not-pass-on-bill-that-would-broadly-define-interest","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6325073-3c2995fc7dbe6b29ab51b7e0f1c9f05f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771167915&Signature=T5QxQFA4bD8SWbkrM7Wc895Mv9WgLtGADg5IF4EE5TjPw5h5Au3JXkE5yR3PGupvctzLCLkrgaEWwzvKD3DuN1smJhFzO~YAftMITg~0z7RiqrPs1BA7Y6CgNJzvZde-WNiqNF-B7jq8xywhqxjeGkZemRP~PnCL6nEjkNNnUTCzshl7ZUuZlRpq0ms-YbvzFWgTFLBQkBG2Mv2dZ~Ex89DRTnQ-ZW3KBJs5cekdE8lldsaCl1FVV9LDOdWdg~BZbnWY01BaInjcSa-KHDzWpZdAHZX6LQNT3UbhiB-QcxnyGK5a214PoFo5LfApY64nMbAfn2Igfjj05KYHZoms-Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","At a House Judiciary Committee meeting, members voted 8‑6 to recommend \"do not pass\" on House Bill 14‑09, a proposal to add a broad definition of the word \"interest\" in Title 32 that sponsors said would expand options for pro se litigants.

The bill's sponsor was not present. Supporters told the committee they want the term \"interest\" interpreted \"as liberally as possible\" so people who represent themselves could bring another person into a court action to help them. Representative Van Winkle told the committee the aim is to \"give our citizens some opportunity to pull somebody into their case, when they can't find anybody to represent them\" and that liberal interpretation of interest would \"open up their opportunities to pull somebody in to help them.\" Representative Van Winkle noted a stated shortage of lawyers and said the option would be voluntary for litigants.

Opponents raised concerns about the unauthorized practice of law, ethics oversight and civil liability. Committee members said the attorney general's office reported that the word \"interest\" appears frequently in the Century Code — 4,375 times overall and 196 times in Title 32 — and that one draft sentence in the bill could allow a non‑lawyer to represent a party in a judicial action. Committee discussion repeatedly referenced that practicing law without a license is a criminal offense in state statute (described at the hearing as a class A misdemeanor) and that non‑lawyers would not be subject to lawyer disciplinary rules or professional liability regimes.

Lawmakers opposing the bill argued the change could create standing problems and unintended consequences throughout the Century Code. Representative Kearns said the committee was \"arguing around in circles\" and moved a \"do not pass\" recommendation; Representative Schneider seconded the motion. Representative Schneider later said she would \"be resisting the do not pass\" motion, while Representative Wolf warned the change \"may have some unintended consequences somewhere else by changing the definition of interest.\" Representative Better and others expressed worries about removing professional licensing safeguards.

The roll call on the \"do not pass\" motion recorded eight members voting yes and six voting no, carrying the motion. After voting, committee members briefly discussed whether the bill would still need a bill carrier; Representative Satrim agreed to carry the bill forward despite the committee recommendation.

The committee did not adopt any amendment to require training, liability insurance, a waiver, or submission to disciplinary rules for non‑lawyer advisers during the hearing.","The House Judiciary Committee voted 8-6 to recommend 'do not pass' on House Bill 14‑09, which would add a broad definition of the word \"interest\" and, critics say, could allow non‑attorneys to appear in court for parties without subjecting them to lawyer disciplinary rules.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee reconsiders Senate Bill 2054 and defers further action to next meeting

Committee splits on apprenticeship path to the bar; amendment passed but bill fails in committee

House Judiciary Committee votes to recommend 'do not pass' on bill that would broadly define 'interest'