State panel recommends Knudsen’s suspension amid professional conduct complaint

HELENA — A state committee recommends that Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen be suspended from practicing law for 90 days, arguing he violated the attorney code of ethics in his handling of a dispute long-standing legal relationship between the legislative and judicial powers.

An adjudication panel of the Montana Commission on Practice submitted its recommendation Wednesday, two weeks after holding a hearing on a professional conduct complaint against Knudsen.

“The COP finds that the conduct at issue herein repeatedly, consistently and undeniably violates the provisions (of the Montana Rules of Professional Conduct) set forth in the Complaint and herein, and is prejudicial to the administration of justice,” a writes the chairman of the panel. Randy Ogle, a Kalispell attorney.

This recommendation has no immediate effect. Knudsen’s office has already promised to appeal the decision, and the Montana Supreme Court will make a final decision on what, if any, disciplinary action to impose.

The case dates back to 2021, when Knudsen represented Republican lawmakers who subpoenaed and received internal emails from Supreme Court justices, lower court judges and judicial branch staff. They sought to know whether judges had expressed opinions on bills considered by Parliament, arguing that the practice raised concerns about due process and impartiality when bills were challenged in their courts .

The Montana Supreme Court blocked the subpoenas, ruling they exceeded the legislature’s authority. Knudsen repeatedly asked the court to reconsider its decision and ultimately asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene. In documents and letters, he and his lawyers have repeatedly criticized the court’s actions, arguing that it was inappropriate for them to rule on a case that concerned their own policies and employees.

The complaint against Knudsen claimed that he and his attorneys violated rules of professional conduct by disobeying a duty of a court and making statements about the integrity of judges that were false or reckless disregard of whether they were true or false. Panel members ruled that he disregarded the Supreme Court’s order by failing to immediately return the emails in question, and that language he “implemented, approved or ratified” in response to the Court violated his duties as a lawyer.

“No attorney licensed to practice law and armed with his privileges and responsibilities, especially our State’s Chief Law Officer, charged with the duty to defend every elected official and the laws of our State, may attack other elected officials of our State with impunity ., in apparent total disregard for the rule of law and the MRPC,” Ogle wrote.

Knudsen said during the hearing that, if he had the chance to do it over again, he probably would not have approved of some of the language used in those documents. However, he said the situation was “an absolutely novel constitutional emergency” and his actions were all legitimate attempts to defend the rights and interests of his clients – Parliament.

Knudsen’s lawyers also asked the panel to consider the political context of these actions and the fact that disciplining him could further inflame conflict between branches of government. The panel said taking this into consideration would not change its analysis.

“Again, the COP does not have the luxury of considering concerns on such matters: our sole focus, the ONLY issue, is the conduct of the respondent measured against the admittedly applicable rules,” Ogle wrote.

Now that the recommendation is released, Knudsen’s attorneys will have 30 days to file objections, and the other side will then have an additional 30 days to respond. After that, the Supreme Court will decide whether to hold oral argument before considering the case.

Emilee Cantrell, a spokesperson for the Attorney General’s Office, responded to the recommendation in a statement to MTN.

“We obviously disagree with the recommendation made by the Commission on Practice and agree with the 2022 recommendation of the Office of Disciplinary Counsel’s first special counsel, Daniel McLean, that this matter could have been handled in private, thus avoiding a politically charged disagreement,” she said. “In addition to objecting on the merits of the recommendation, we plan to respond on appeal to the COP’s violations of due process and the multiple irregularities committed throughout the proceedings.”