The Montana Supreme Court dismissed a misconduct case against Attorney General Austin Knudsen on Wednesday, after a drawn-out legal struggle regarding a law that enhanced the governor's authority over judicial appointments.
In 2021, the law was part of a national movement to shape a more conservative judiciary, garnering significant attention and straining relationships between the state’s highest legal authorities. The court-appointed panel had previously found that Knudsen violated professional conduct rules by disparaging justices while defending the law.
The Supreme Court's ruling confirmed the panel's findings of misconduct, but stated that crucial due process rights were overlooked during the hearings, particularly in relation to the exclusion of Knudsen’s expert witness. Chief Justice Cory Swanson described the ruling as a necessary admonition, emphasizing the importance of adherence to court orders for all attorneys in the state.
Having argued that the complaint was politically motivated, Knudsen stated, I appreciate the Supreme Court bringing this frivolous complaint to a long-overdue conclusion. He maintained that the extensive litigation reflected far worse repercussions than any 'private admonition' initially suggested.
The opinions among justices varied, with six justices rejecting the idea of suspending Knudsen, while only Justice Katherine Bidegaray dissented, arguing for a more severe public censure and a 30-day suspension. Bidegaray expressed concerns that dismissing the disciplinary record altogether undermined the integrity of the legal profession.
In a reflective moment, Knudsen acknowledged during a hearing that some language used in legal representation could have been approached with more caution. Overall, the Supreme Court's decision underscores the balance of power between elected officials and the judiciary and maintains the standards expected from legal professionals.
