Judges Question Treatment of Knudsen in Disciplinary Case
Knudsen was found in violation of 41 rules of conduct by Montana’s Commission on Practice last fall
A panel of Montana Supreme Court justices and district court judges scrutinized the disciplinary findings against state Attorney General Austin Knudsen during a hearing Friday.
Knudsen, a Republican, was found in violation of 41 rules of conduct by Montana’s Commission on Practice last fall, but only a fraction of those charges was forwarded to the Supreme Court. A panel of justices and substitute judges from state district courts met Friday to hear arguments on what kind of disciplinary action they should take against Knudsen.
At issue are the attorney general’s actions in 2021 while representing the state Legislature in a dispute with the judicial branch. Knudsen refused to comply with a Supreme Court order and disparaged justices. Knudsen’s attorneys argue that he has a First Amendment right to criticize the court.
Chief Justice Cory Swanson said Friday he was expecting a more detailed account of the findings that Knudsen violated rules of conduct.
“So, I’m looking at the findings of fact and conclusions of law and recommendations. I got to page 25. Page 25, conclusions of law, and there’s five sentences,” Swanson said. “ … And then I flip [the page] and I’m like ‘Wow, there’s some pages missing here.’ There’s nothing. There’s no findings. There’s no conclusions of law.”
All but two Supreme Court justices recused themselves from the case. Only Swanson and Katherine Bidegaray, both newly elected, participated, along with five empaneled district court judges.
Judge Gregory Bonilla, from the 9th Judicial District, echoed Swanson’s criticisms about how the Commission on Practice managed the case against the attorney general. The judges voiced concerns about the Commission on Practice hearing the case weeks before the 2024 election, in which Knudsen campaigned for a second term and won comfortably.
“Quite candidly, had I been the attorney general’s employee or advisor, I would have said something like, ‘Boss, let’s think about this,’” Bonilla said of the actions Knudsen took in 2021. “But how that situation played out before the ODC is an entirely separate question. Wouldn’t you agree, there’s the conduct and then there’s ‘Did we do it right?’”
Disciplinary Counsel Tim Strauch, who prosecuted the case against Knudsen, said details delivered to the Supreme Court were short because the Commission on Practice is an extension of the Supreme Court and doesn’t function under the rules of state district courts that have to produce detailed findings and conclusions on appeal.
Strauch then drew the court’s attention to Knudsen ignoring a Supreme Court order in July of 2021. No one questioned whether the order was ignored, Strauch said.
“No lawyer is above this court’s constitutional regulatory authority. We do not have here a contrite or apologetic respondent, but a defiant one. To this day he blames the court, the commission, myself, and my predecessor,” Strauch said.
Knudsen’s defense team continues to argue for the case’s dismissal, in part because they say the attorney general’s right to free speech should include critical comments about the court. Attorney Christian Corrigan on Friday suggested that if the case proceeds,action taken to discipline Knudsen should be minor.
“So, I think the closest thing the court could do would be to issue something akin to a public letter of caution to say these were unresolved issues and unique at the time,” Corrigan said, suggesting that the court should turn down the temperature surrounding the issue.
Strauch declined to recommend to the court a disciplinary action against Knudsen.
The court didn’t rule on the matter Friday. Before closing, several judges on the panel said they had been disparaged by attorneys over court proceedings and some criticism comes with the job.
By Tom Lutey for Montana Free Press
It’s unfortunate Swanson run his Supreme Court race. He has limited experience and is biased towards Knudsen.