PER CURIAM:
This is an original Petition for Unification of the Montana Bar filed with this Court on April 28, 1970, the petitioners being the officers and authorized representatives of the Montana Bar Association and individual licensed practicing attorneys of this state.
After the filing of the petition, this Court issued a per curiam order on December 3, 1970, as follows:
"Petitions for unification of the Montana Bar have been filed with this Court, the petitioners being the officers and authorized representatives of the Montana Bar Association and individual licensed practicing attorneys of this state. The petitions were signed by 501 licensed and practicing lawyers of Montana.
"Since the petitions had been circulated over a period of a year the Court desired to secure an expression of the present opinion from those who signed the petitions and also from those who did not sign. To accomplish this the Court directed a communication to all who signed, enclosing a postcard for reply, asking whether or not they still desired unification. We further directed another communication to all licensed lawyers in Montana who did not sign the petition in an effort to ascertain their views. We have received 743 return cards.
"These give the following statistics:
"408 cards were returned from signers and they indicated:
"333 still favor unification
"73 are now opposed
"2 are now undecided.
"173 cards from lawyers who were not approached with the petition and expressed no view.
"59 cards from lawyers who also were not approached but who did indicate their views. They stood 15 for unification, 29 opposed.
"103 cards from lawyers who were approached but did not sign the petition. Their views were 89 did not favor unification, 5 did not favor the proposed plan, 9 did not want to sign.
"The Court acknowledges that it was responsible for the delay in setting this matter for hearing but we trust the lawyers will recognize that three members of the Court have been engaged in a political campaign for many months last past. However, we are now in position to proceed.
"The matter will be heard before the Court commencing at the hour of 9:30 a.m. on Monday, the 18th day of January, 1971, subject to the following rules:
"Any interested person or group may file typewritten brief or letter in support or opposition of the petitions, 7 copies of such brief or letter to be filed with the Clerk and the same to be filed on or before January 4, 1971.
"Any interested person or group desiring to be heard orally shall advise the Chief Justice of such desire on or before December 21, 1970, by letter, indicating whether he favors or opposes the petition.
"To facilitate orderly presentation of the argument when such requests are received the Court will appoint two managers for the petitioners and two managers for the opponents and the arrangements as to who shall make oral arguments and the time thereof shall be arranged between the Chief Justice and the managers.
"Should any clarification be desired kindly write to the Chief Justice."
Following this order, this Court did appoint the managers for opponents and proponents. Messrs. Norman Hanson, Esq. of Billings and Donald A. Douglas, Esq. of Helena for opponents; Paul T. Keller, Esq. of Helena and Ben E. Berg, Jr. of Bozeman for the proponents. Oral argument was had.
Numerous communications, by letter, telegram and formal papers were received. The Court has accepted all communications without requiring formality of procedure. For the most part, the communications express support or opposition to the petition. We have the benefit of various briefs and written arguments and expressions.
The Court, on its own initiative, as previously indicated in our order, has canvassed the Bar of Montana. It is fair to say that the Bar is split, with perhaps a majority favoring unification. However, a strong minority against unification appears. This Court has previously determined that it has the power and jurisdiction to order unification of the Bar. See: In re Unification of the Montana Bar Association, 107 Mont. 559, 87 P.2d 172 (1939); In re Unification of Bar of this Court, 119 Mont. 494, 175 P.2d 773 (1947); Application of the Montana Bar Association, 140 Mont. 101, 368 P.2d 158 (1962); Application of the Montana Bar Association, 142 Mont. 351, 353, 354, 385 P.2d 99 (1963).
In the latter cited application (1963), this Court said in part:
"The Court has made a considerable study of the application. Students of the problems of Bar integration have observed that unification of the Bar is for the benefit of the public in the last analysis, but, in addition it is a benefit to lawyers generally. We point out that aside from our responsibility to the public, the benefits to be achieved are for the profession and not for the courts. Previously we revealed the results of our poll of the Bar. This demonstrates that the Bar does not desire unification with its attendant asserted benefits at this time.
"The Court now comes to the decision referred to. After long study and thoughtful consideration by a divided court, a divided or disinterested Bar as reflected by the ballot, and other matters, the court has ordered, and this does order that the petition * * * be dismissed."
The situation now, eight years later, is almost identical. A divided or disinterested Bar, again a divided court, leads us to the decision to deny the petition at this time.
It is so ordered.