Upper Seven Law
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 861632816
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2021–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- Helena, MT, USA
- Phone
- 4063963373
- Rating
- 82
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Standard
- Sector
- Civil Liberties
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,349,658
- Expenses
- $1,346,077
- Assets
- $643,132
- Liabilities
- $67,996
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
7 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- RYLEE SOMMERS-FLANAGAN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- RYLEE SOMMERS-FLANAGAN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $125,756 total reported compensation
- MOLLY DANAHY (LITIGATION DIRECTOR): $111,410 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Upper seven law is dedicated to holding the powerful accountable and advocating for the constitutional rights of all montanans.
What it reported doing in 2025
Upper seven law is a nonprofit, nonpartisian law firm dedicated to holding the powerful accountable. In 2025, upper seven law maintained twelve active cases in state and federal court and two broad-ranging litigation projects. Among other examples, we challenged the governor's unconstitutional appointment of a sitting legislator as commerce department director, we defended montanans' voting rights, and through our national health service corps waiver project, we saved clients more than $565,000 in punitive fines. In decemeber, we were granted summary judgement in Montana quality education coalition v. Gianforte, challenging education savings accounts that diverted public school funds to private individuals without sufficient state oversight.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 92% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 78
- Transparency & Controls: 100
- Accountability: 72
- Sustainability: 28
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 81.3%; rating input score 81
- Program expense ratio: 81.4%; rating input score 81
- Fundraising efficiency: $19.34 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 5 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 56
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 0.3%; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.48; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.11; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 17.6%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 35% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 34% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 37.3% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 81.3% of revenue deployed · 81.4% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 5 of 6 board members independent · 5 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $1.1M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $126K · 7 people listed
- Consistency: 23 of 25 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
- Filing history: 5 filing years from 2021 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
- Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
- People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 54/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 31/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 23/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Fund balance restriction sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 20/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 34/100.