Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen stood firm in his defense during a formal hearing Wednesday and Thursday regarding a professional conduct complaint against him by a California lawyer, which arises from a long-standing legal dispute between the state Legislature and the judicial branch. The hearing, conducted by an adjudicatory panel of the Montana Commission on Practice, marks a significant moment in the politically charged landscape of Montana governance.
At the outset of the hearing, panel chair Randy Ogle, a Kalispell based trial lawyer and longtime Democratic donor, noted the unusual nature of the complaint, which includes 41 counts alleging violations of ethical conduct. These accusations stem from Knudsen’s representation of Republican legislators in 2021 when they issued subpoenas for internal emails from Supreme Court justices and judicial staff. The legislators argued that these emails could shed light on potential biases affecting due process in ongoing legal challenges.
Solicitor General Christian Corrigan defended Knudsen’s actions, stating that they were made in good faith during high-stakes constitutional litigation between co-equal branches of government. He emphasized that regardless of differing opinions on Knudsen’s approach, the attorney general acted to protect the interests of the Legislature.
The complaint, presented by special counsel Tim Strauch, asserts that Knudsen and his office undermined public confidence in the judicial system. However, Knudsen’s office has characterized these allegations as meritless and politically motivated.
Strauch, a longtime Democrat activist and donor from Missoula was selected as the second Special Counsel in the matter.The first Special Counsel had, David McLean, of Helena recommended resolving the complaint with a private letter but when that was rejected by the Commission on Practice, Strauch was brought in.
During the hearing, Strauch questioned Knudsen about his statements in legal filings, specifically labeling some court rulings as “ludicrous” and suggesting they may reflect a lack of respect for the judiciary. Knudsen maintained that the discussion should remain focused on the allegations without delving into broader political issues.
The case highlights a significant conflict within state governance, stemming from the Supreme Court’s 2021 ruling that blocked the subpoenas issued by the Legislature, asserting that they exceeded legislative authority. Following that ruling, Knudsen and his office sought multiple reconsiderations and even appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the judicial branch overstepped its bounds by ruling on matters involving its own policies.
The panel will recommend whether any disciplinary action should be taken against Knudsen, as he remains resolute in defending both his and the Legislature’s actions amid the ongoing scrutiny.
