The Montana Supreme Court dismissed disciplinary proceedings against Attorney General Austin Knudsen on Tuesday, ending a high-profile ethics case that stemmed from a 2021 separation-of-powers dispute over judicial appointments.
The court issued an opinion and order in *Matter of Austin Miles Knudsen* (2025 MT 304), affirming parts of a Commission on Practice ruling while reversing others and ultimately dismissing the proceeding against the state's top law enforcement officer.
The case originated during the 2021 Legislative Session when a dispute erupted among Montana's three branches of government over Senate Bill 140, which would have changed how the governor appoints judges to fill vacancies. The conflict escalated when the Legislature issued subpoenas to obtain email files from then-Court Administrator Beth McLaughlin.
Multiple court proceedings followed, resulting in orders to quash the legislative subpoenas and return materials obtained through them. During this dispute, Knudsen and attorneys in his office engaged in communications with the court through letters and court filings that accused Supreme Court justices of conflicts of interest, unethical conduct, and self-serving decisions.
The Office of Disciplinary Counsel received a complaint against Knudsen for alleged violations of the Montana Rules of Professional Conduct, which govern attorney behavior statewide. After an investigation, ODC Special Counsel charged Knudsen with 41 counts of misconduct.
The Commission on Practice convened a hearing on the misconduct allegations Oct. 9-10, 2024. Two weeks later, on Oct. 23, 2024, the commission issued a decision finding Knudsen had committed five violations of professional conduct rules.
The commission found violations of Rule 3.4(c) for disobeying a court obligation or order, or for violating his oath as an attorney. It also cited Rule 5.1(c) for ordering or approving subordinate attorneys' conduct in disobeying court obligations or orders.
Additionally, the commission found violations of Rule 8.2(a) for making statements known to be false or made with reckless disregard for truth when concerning a judge's qualifications or integrity. The commission also cited Rule 8.4(a) as a general violation provision.
The dispute centered on the fundamental question of separation of powers in Montana government. Senate Bill 140 represented an attempt by the Legislature to alter the judicial appointment process, traditionally within executive branch authority through the governor's appointment power.
When the Legislature sought to compel production of court administrative emails through subpoenas, it triggered a constitutional crisis that required judicial intervention. The court's orders to quash those subpoenas and return obtained materials reflected its determination to protect judicial independence and administrative confidentiality.
Knudsen's office argued its communications were necessary to defend executive branch prerogatives and ensure proper constitutional boundaries. However, the commission initially found that some statements crossed ethical lines by making unfounded accusations against sitting justices.
The Montana Supreme Court's ultimate decision to dismiss the proceedings represents a resolution that acknowledges the complex constitutional dynamics at play during the 2021 dispute. The court's mixed ruling—affirming parts while reversing others—suggests nuanced consideration of both attorney conduct standards and separation-of-powers principles.
The case highlights ongoing tensions in Montana government over judicial selection processes and the proper roles of each governmental branch. Similar disputes have occurred in other states where legislatures have sought greater influence over judicial appointments traditionally controlled by governors.
For Knudsen, the dismissal ends a disciplinary proceeding that could have resulted in sanctions ranging from reprimand to suspension or disbarment. The attorney general has maintained his office acted appropriately in defending constitutional principles during an extraordinary governmental dispute.
The ruling also provides clarity for attorneys representing governmental entities during inter-branch conflicts. The decision may influence how legal counsel navigate similar disputes while maintaining professional conduct obligations.
The case demonstrates the complexity of applying attorney discipline rules during constitutional crises involving separation of powers. Courts must balance maintaining professional standards with recognizing the unique pressures and duties facing government attorneys during institutional conflicts.
The Commission on Practice's initial findings of five violations out of 41 alleged counts suggested a measured approach to the charges. The Supreme Court's ultimate dismissal indicates even greater restraint in applying disciplinary sanctions during governmental disputes involving fundamental constitutional questions.
This resolution allows Knudsen to continue serving as attorney general without the cloud of pending disciplinary proceedings. The case serves as precedent for future disputes involving attorney conduct during separation-of-powers conflicts in Montana.