Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen, a Republican, is fighting back against a recommendation from the Montana Supreme Court’s Commission on Practice to suspend him from practicing law for 90 days, following his controversial actions in a separation of powers dispute with the state’s judicial branch. At the center of the dispute is Knudsen’s public criticism of the court and his alleged refusal to comply with a Supreme Court order during a high-profile 2021 case.
Knudsen’s defense attorneys argue that the disciplinary process was deeply flawed and politically motivated, urging the Montana Supreme Court to dismiss the suspension recommendation. In Friday’s hearing, Solicitor General Christian Corrigan described the recommended suspension as “highly irregular and unprecedented,” suggesting it could reignite tensions between Montana’s legislative and judicial branches at a time when political considerations are particularly sensitive. The disciplinary case, which stems from a complaint filed by a California attorney over Knudsen’s conduct during the McLaughlin v. Montana State Legislature case, has attracted attention for its timing—coming just weeks before the 2024 election in which Knudsen secured a second term.
Special Counsel Tim Strauch, who prosecuted the case against Knudsen, is a longtime Democratic donor, raising concerns about potential political bias. Strauch’s ties to the Democratic Party have drawn scrutiny, especially given that the Commission on Practice, which recommended the 90-day suspension, has also been criticized for its members’ political leanings. Several members of the commission, which decided to move forward with the disciplinary action against Knudsen, have donated over $50,000 to Democratic candidates and causes, fueling accusations that the proceedings are influenced by partisan politics.
Strauch’s arguments in favor of suspension focus on Knudsen’s alleged failure to show contrition for his public comments and his refusal to follow court orders. However, Knudsen’s legal team contends that his First Amendment rights should allow him to criticize the judiciary, particularly when representing the state Legislature in an ongoing constitutional dispute.
The panel of judges reviewing the case, which includes newly elected Chief Justice Cory Swanson and Justice Katherine Bidegaray, along with five district court judges, expressed concerns about the timing and fairness of the process. Chief Justice Swanson questioned the lack of detailed findings and conclusions in the disciplinary recommendations, with some judges on the panel pointing out that the entire disciplinary process may have been rushed and politically charged, especially in light of Knudsen’s recent electoral victory.
Knudsen’s attorneys argue that the disciplinary action is part of a broader attempt to undermine him politically, particularly given the timing of the recommendation just before the election. Swanson himself appeared to agree with the defense, remarking that the case seemed politically motivated and questioning how the disciplinary proceedings could be conducted without giving Knudsen a proper opportunity to respond.
As the case unfolds, critics of the disciplinary process continue to argue that it highlights the growing influence of partisan politics in Montana’s legal and judicial systems, with many questioning whether Knudsen’s conduct truly warrants such a harsh penalty or if the case is being used as a political weapon. With special counsel Tim Strauch’s political ties and the political nature of the proceedings under scrutiny, the controversy surrounding Knudsen’s case is likely to continue to raise eyebrows as it progresses through the court system.
The court didn’t rule on the matter immediately and it is unknown when they may release their final decision.