Getting along with every single person encountered in a workplace would be nice, but rather unlikely. Chances are any beef will involve someone further up on the food chain. If that's the case, describing them with contemptuous, undignified, discourteous, and disrespectful statements may not be the best solution.
On March 28, 2025, a modified Montana Supreme Court heard arguments concerning state Attorney General Austin Knudsen and the state Office of Disciplinary Counsel's (ODC) recommendation for his suspension. Knudsen faces 41 counts of professional misconduct for his behavior interacting with ... the Montana Supreme Court.
The Commission on Practice in the Montana ODC called for a 90-day suspension of Knudsen's ability to practice law for his violations of the Montana Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC). Knudsen has chosen not to accept the ruling quietly.
Guns Blazing From the Get-Go
Austin Knudsen was elected as Montana's attorney general in 2020, assuming the office in January 2021. His previous experience included being Speaker in the Montana House of Representatives for four years and serving as the Roosevelt County Attorney. He was reelected as attorney general in 2024.
Knudsen's clashes with the Montana Supreme Court started quickly. In 2021, the Montana Senate passed Senate Bill 140 (SB 140). This eliminated the judicial nomination commission created by legislation in 1973 and largely gave control of selecting Montana Supreme Court justices to Governor Greg Gianforte.
A petition for original jurisdiction challenging the constitutionality of SB 140 was filed on March 17, 2021. On April 1, the attorney general, acting on behalf of Gianforte, filed a motion for the acting chief justice to recuse himself. The filing included attached emails alleging misconduct between justices and a Supreme Court administrator.
A week later, the Montana Legislature issued a subpoena for relevant emails involving the administrator. On April 11, the Montana Supreme Court quashed the Legislature's subpoena until a hearing could be conducted. After the stay was issued, an agent of the Legislature gave USB drives containing the emails to the Office of the Attorney General, which were copied and reviewed.
This began a back-and-forth of motions between the involved parties. Knudsen began adding insults and accusations in his filings, which included a declaration by the Legislature to ignore a court order, intimation of judicial misconduct, and stating the court was guilty of "actual impropriety." He also ignored an order calling for the return of the administrator's emails.
In response to a May 12 order denying the motion to recuse judges, Knudsen sent a letter to the Supreme Court accusing the justices of threatening and attacking the professional integrity of the attorneys in his office. The MRPC requires any accusations of judicial misconduct to be presented to the Montana Judicial Standards Commission.
In later filings, Knudsen accused the Supreme Court of "questionable judicial conduct" and stated that "the Court lacks prudential standing, violates due process, and worsens an already disqualifying conflict of interest."
Knudsen upped the ante in later filings, writing that "judicial self-dealing on this scale might be unprecedented in the Nation’s history." His attempt to have a higher court act on his behalf failed when the U.S. Supreme Court denied his writ of certiorari in March 2022.
Actions, Consequences, Etc.
The Montana Supreme Court hearing arguments in this case contains two justices who hadn't been on the court at the time of the dispute, along with five district court judges filling in for the recused justices. While there was little indication that the court found Knudsen's numerous violations of the MRPC excusable, they also had questions about the ODC's Commission on Practice and the procedures used to arrive at their decision.
Knudsen's tenure has been rife with controversy beyond the SB 140 fracas. He ordered a county attorney to dismiss weapons charges against a man who was accused of threatening a restaurant manager who enforced the state's mask mandate. Later, in 2021, a hospital claimed public officials threatened them for refusing to administer ivermectin to treat COVID-19, a call Knudsen admitted to being part of.
In 2024, Knudsen was recorded bragging that he hired a "dummy candidate" to run against him in his primary. This allowed him to raise more funds for his reelection campaign.
The modified Supreme Court made no immediate ruling and didn't indicate when one would be issued. If it agrees that Knudsen's suspension should stand, it would leave the state without an attorney general for those 90 days. Knudsen will not be removed from the position and will resume his duties after the suspension.
Related Resources
- When Justice Turns a Blind Eye (FindLaw's Courtside)
- What Does an Attorney General Do? (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life)
- Lawyer Suspended for Lying About Taking Two CLE Courses (FindLaw's Practice of Law)
