Pamela D. Bucy
2 Chief Disciplinary Counsel P. O. Box 1099
Helena, Montana 59624
4 Tel: (406) 442-1648 buc montanaodc. or
5
Office of Disciplinary Counsel
8
9
10
11
BEFORE THE COMMISSION ON PRACTICE OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
12 IN THE MATTER OF HILARY J.
13 OITZINGER,
14 An Attorney at Law,
15 Respondent. Supreme Court Cause No. ODC File No. 24-079
COMPLAINT
Rules 3.4 and 8.4, MRPC
16
^ By leave of the Commission on Practice granted on July 15, 2026, the Office 18 of Disciplinary Counsel for the State of Montana ("ODC"), hereby charges Hilary J.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Oitzinger with professional misconduct as follows:
General Allegations
1. Hilary J. Oitzinger hereinafter referred to as Respondent, was admitted to the practice of law in the State of Montana in 2008, at which time she took the oath required for admission, wherein Respondent agreed to abide by the Rules of Complaint - Page 1
07/30/2026
Case Number: PR 26-0535
1
Professional Conduct, the Disciplinary Rules adopted by the Supreme Court, and the 2 highest standards of honesty, justice and morality, including but not limited to, those 3 outlined in parts 3 and 4 of Chapter 6 1, Title 37, Montana Code Annotated.
4
2. The Montana Supreme Court has approved and adopted the Montana Rules
5
of Professional Conduct ("MRPC"), governing the ethical conduct of attorneys 7 licensed to practice in the State of Montana, which Rules were in effect at all times
9
10
mentioned in this Complaint.
3. At all times relevant to the conduct in the Complaint, Respondent owned [ 1 and operated a solo practice out of Butte and Helena, Montana.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
4. These charges are the result of a contentious dissolution and child custody matter out of Butte-Silver Bow County. ODC received a grievance against Respondent filed by the spouse of Respondent's client, M.F. For articulable legal reasons. Respondent, on behalf of her client, chose to file for dissolution and for an emergency order of protection in Lake County despite the couple having resided in Butte-Silver Bow County, for several years.
5. Respondent was aware that Lake County did not utilize electronic filing and as a result, drove the documents to Lake County to file them.
6. As part of her filings for the temporary order of protection, Respondent alleged her client had been the victim of domestic violence by M. F. and requested an. Emergency Ex Parte Temporary Order of Protection (TOP). On October 4, 2023, Complaint - Page 2
2
Respondent met with Hon. Deborah Kim Christopher in chambers and the TOP was 2 granted. The TOP did not include a hearing date because it was not a "standard form"
or "template" order.
4
7. The TOP in part, ordered M. F. to, "appear at a date within 20 days of
5
^ the entry of this Temporary Order of Protection to show cause why the Order shall 7 not be made permanent. The Court will set this hearing for the next available date on its calendar. . . and will notify the parties of the date and time of that hearing."
10
Respondent was advised that due to M. F. residing out of Lake County, she would be j ] responsible for ensuring service of the TOP. Respondent arranged M. F. 's service of
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the dissolution documents and TOP by Butte law enforcement, October 4; M.F. was served October 6.
8. On October 5, the Court entered a separate "template" Temporary Order of Protection, which included M.F. 's personal descriptors and vehicle information, as well as set a hearing date of October 12, 2023, at 2:00 p.m. at the Lake County Courthouse. Respondent was asked to fill in those descriptors and was emailed a copy of the final TOP and instructed to serve the same. However, Respondent did not arrange for the service of the October 5 TOP. She later reported being "surprised"
that the October 5 TOP "wound up in the file" and that she did not believe it was the
"operative" order, given the October 4 TOP. //
Complaint - Page 3
3
9. Also on October 5, 2023, the Court issued a separate Order Setting
2 Hearing, confirming that the hearing was set for October 12, 2023, at 2:00 p. m.
3 While Respondent arranged to have M.F. personally served the October 4 TOP and
4
the dissolution paperwork, she did not arrange for the service of the October 5 TOP
5
^ or ensure he had received the Order Setting Hearing. Respondent received the Order 7 in the mail October 9, but M.F. did not receive a copy of either until after the
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
permanent Order had been entered. Count One
10. ODC realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 9 of the General Allegations in this Count One.
11. On October 11, 2023, M.F. retained a Butte attorney to represent him. That attorney contacted Respondent on the morning of October 12, 2023, to advise her of his representation ofM.F., and that he intended to move to transfer venue to Butte-Silver Bow. Respondent stated her position on the motion and exchanged numerous emails with M.F. 's attorney, the latest of which was approximately one
(1) hour prior to the hearing.
12. Respondent asserted that she advised M.F/s attorney she was on the way to the hearing for her client, but M.F. 's attorney denies there was any discussion that there was a hearing set at 2:00 p.m. that day.
\\
Complaint - Page 4
4
13. Neither M. F. nor his attorney appeared and Judge Christoper entered a 2 permanent Order of Protection. M. F. 's attorney filed a Motion to Change Venue, 3 which was granted and the case was transferred to Butte-Silver Bow.
4
14. Respondent's brief in support of the TOP alleged "sexually coercive and
5
^ abusive" conduct by M. F. and other allegations of his abuse of his previous partners.
7 However, approximately four (4) pages of allegations pertained to an entirely different and unrelated matter. These allegations included that M.F. had teenage
10
children who were afraid of him and did not wish to have contact with him, as well 1 as discussed allegations of physical abuse towards an adult stepson, who also had an
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
order of protection against M.F.
15. Respondent was unaware those facts were included until M. F. 's attorney notified her. Respondent insisted that her discussions with the presiding judge did not reference these allegations and that the judge did not consider them in her determination. However, Respondent chose not to file a corrected brief because by this time, the venue motion was pending.
16. Respondent reported that she orally informed the Court of M. F. 's representation prior to the hearing and that the Court had waited for about ten (10) minutes before starting. She then asked the Court whether they should continue the hearing or proceed with testimony, and the judge directed Respondent to proceed with the hearing. However, the hearing transcript reflected that the hearing started Complaint - Page 5
5
promptly at the scheduled time and that it was Respondent who wished to proceed 2 with testimony, "in the event that a motion for change of venue is filed by a - a counsel who has not appeared in this matter. " Respondent did not ask to wait for
4
M.F. or his counsel, nor did she advise the Court on the record that she had
5
^ communicated with M.F. ' s attorney just an hour before the hearing. 7 17. Respondent's client was sworn and testimony offered, but Respondent
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
did not illicit testimony or ask questions to clarify that the brief in support had included irrelevant facts and circumstances.
18. At the close of testimony, Judge Christopher observed that the Return of Service stated that M.F. had only been served with the TOP. In response. Respondent stated, "[1] believe he was served with all the documents all at once."
19. Respondent b-iew of the hearing date as of October 5, 2023, when she was emailed a copy of the second TOP issued that day. After receiving the same, Respondent elected not to have M.F. served with it believing, based upon her conversations with Judge Christopher and her law clerk, that an Order Setting Hearing would be issued separately. She awaited that Order, which she received on October 9 by mail. Despite the "ec" which noticed Lake County law enforcement, and knowing they would not serve an out of jurisdiction party, Respondent did not ensure M. F. was notified of the hearing.
//
Complaint - Page 6
6
20. Respondent acknowledged that the hearing had been set quickly, that
2 Lake County did things "differently" and finally, that Lake County would not accept electronic service. These circumstances only compound Respondent's decision not
4
to serve M.F. with the October 5 TOP and Order Setting Hearing, or to advise his
5
g attorney of the hearing that day, despite many opportunities. 7 21. Rule 3.4, Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel, prohibits an attorney from unlawfully obstructing another party's access to evidence, unlawfully
10
concealing a document or other material having potential evidentiary value. Rule 11 8.4, Misconduct, states that it is professional misconduct for an attorney to engage
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
in conducting involving deceit or misrepresentation. Respondent's conduct outlined above constitutes violations of Rules 3.4, and 8. 4, MRPC. WHEREFORE, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel prays:
1. That a Citation be issued to the Respondent, to which shall be attached a copy of the complaint, requiring Respondent, within twenty-one (21) days after ser/ice thereof, to file a written answer to the complaint;
2. That a formal hearing be had on the allegations of this complaint before an Adjudicatory Panel of the Commission;
3. That the Adjudicatory Panel of the Commission make a report of its findings and recommendations after a formal hearing to the Montana Supreme Court, and, in the event the Adjudicatory Panel finds the facts warrant disciplinary Complaint - Page 7
7
action and recommends discipline, that the Commission also recommend the nature 2 and extent of appropriate disciplinary action, including an award of costs and expenses incurred in investigating and prosecuting this matter; and,
4
4. For such other and further relief as deemed necessary and proper.
5
DATED this 30th day of July, 2026.
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
By: A. Pamela D. Bucy Chief Disciplinary Couns Complaint - Page 8
8
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Pamela D. Bucy, hereby certify that I have served true and accurate copies of the foregoing Complaint - Formal Complaint and Citation to Appear to the following on 07-30-2026:
Hilary Joan Oitzinger (Attorney)
P.O. Box 4191
Butte MT 59701
Representing: Hilary Oitzinger
Service Method: eService
Commission on Practice (Other)
PO Box 203005
Helena MT 59620-3005
Representing: Self-Represented
Service Method: E-mail Delivery
Electronically signed by Cathy Gordon on behalf of Pamela D. Bucy Dated: 07-30-2026
9