Commission on Practice Recommends 90-Day Legal License Suspension for AG Knudsen • Daily Montanan

Now that the commission has made its recommendation to the Supreme Court, Knudsen has 30 days to file objections. The Office for Disciplinary Counseling then also has 30 days to submit a short statement on its objections. After that, the Supreme Court could allow the case to be heard or could also choose to consider the case without further argument.

Once this process is complete, the court issues a written decision either imposing a penalty or not. It may follow the Commission’s recommendation but take a different course of action, which may range from imposing a punishment to various types of reprimands, reprimands, suspension or disbarment.

Knudsen, a Republican, is up for re-election in less than two weeks and faces Democrat Ben Alke in the race. According to the Montana Constitution, the Attorney General must be an attorney in good standing with the Montana Bar. The recommendation therefore raises the question of what would happen if the Supreme Court agreed to the recommendation and revoked Knudsen’s license within the two months after the election or if Knudsen was re-elected for another four years.

The findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommendations released by the commission panel on Wednesday address the arguments in the case, which were largely detailed in the hearing two weeks ago and in briefings submitted by both sides throughout the case.

In the commission’s filing, the panel said Knudsen’s lawyers asked it to examine the conduct of Knudsen and two of his deputy attorneys during their representation of the Legislature in a dispute with the Supreme Court and the court administrator over the court’s emails, which it obtained through a had received a summons to apologize to the administration department.

The Office of Disciplinary Counsel alleged in the hearing that over the course of that fight – including the state’s appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court – he and his lawyers used language in their filings and letters that was critical of the judiciary and outspoken violated court orders.

Knudsen’s lawyers had argued that a state of emergency and a constitutional crisis was underway with the fight between the two branches of government, justifying the “zealous” representation of the legislature by him and his office. They also said taking responsibility for Knudsen’s behavior could further fan the fire in the fight. But the panel said it did not have the “luxury” of considering those arguments as substantive.

“If the COP were to in any way advocate or accept conduct that violated the Rules, this abdication of our responsibility to the public to supervise the conduct of lawyers, whether in the name of deference or otherwise, would undermine the very foundations of our conduct “Undermining justice system,” the panel wrote in Wednesday’s filing.

The panel said it was generally accepted that there were heated arguments in court and that court cases almost always resulted in one party losing. However, lawyers are still bound by the professional rules that they undertake to adhere to when they become lawyers.

It said Knudsen acknowledged during the hearing that a lawyer’s conduct is not excused under the rules simply because he is representing his client’s positions. And regardless, the panel said, this case is the language of Knudsen and his deputies, not that of the legislature.

The panel wrote that not requiring lawyers to abide by the rules and principles of the legal system would be “nothing short of an invitation to anarchy.”

“If there is no place where individuals and organizations can expect justice – if the courts cannot maintain their integrity – we are all doomed,” the panel wrote. “Therefore, action must inevitably be taken against behavior that deviates from these obligations.”

The filing also rejected Montana Attorney General Christian Corrigan’s closing arguments in the hearing on behalf of Knudsen, in which he pointed to other cases in which judges had used strong language such as the words “ridiculous” and “perverted.” .

The panel said those arguments disregarded the context in which they were made and did not highlight the most inflammatory comments made by Knudsen or his deputies. The file then sets out all of these comments or acts of defiance, which Knudsen denied in the hearing as contemptuous, undignified, disrespectful or disobedient, a question that special prosecutor Tim Strauch asked him several times.

The legal decisions section of the filing shows that the panel found that Knudsen violated five of Montana’s Rules of Professional Conduct. The document then begins with the conclusion and recommendation.

The panel said it was “firmly entrenched in a dilemma”. It says that no licensed attorney, especially the attorney general, can attack other elected officials with impunity, and that Knudsen’s denial that the comments made violate attorney ethics rules is “extremely disingenuous.” It said that ignoring a court order to immediately return documents to the courts without appealing in court was “unrealistic”.

The panel says Knudsen and his team have suggested that holding him accountable for rule violations could have further consequences. However, the filing says the panel “does not enjoy the luxury” of such deliberations because its sole focus is determining how conduct complies with these ethics rules.

“The true horror of our justice system is that lawyers are not held accountable for their conduct, regardless of the circumstances,” wrote panel Chairman Randy Ogle.

The conclusion states that the panel concluded that emergencies or constitutional crises do not excuse breaches of the Code of Conduct, but rather that the opposite is true. The context presented by Knudsen’s team was described as “largely irrelevant.”

“Lawyers are not weapons to be used at the discretion of a client; Lawyers are certainly charged with advancing the legitimate goals of their clients, but only within the limitations of the law and the MRPC,” the Montana Rules of Professional Conduct filing states.

It said the commission panel was “gratified” that Knudsen said during the hearing that things could have been done differently in 2021 “in hindsight” and that he would now not use such strong language or allow his deputies to do so to use these. However, the filing says that admitting that things could have been done differently does not change what happened on the ground and that Knudsen refused to admit that the conduct violated the rules of professional conduct .

“The circle has come full circle, as can be seen from the file before the COP, with few exceptions: the charge arises not so much from what the defendant did, but rather from how he carried out his duties,” the file says. “The COP concludes that the conduct at issue here repeatedly, consistently and undeniably violates the MRPC provisions referenced in the complaint and herein, and prejudices the administration of justice.”

Cantrell, spokesman for the attorney general’s office, said Knudsen will file objections to the recommendations.

“We obviously disagree with the Commission on Practice’s recommendation and agree with the 2022 recommendation of the Office of Disciplinary Counsel’s first special counsel, Daniel McLean, that this could have been resolved privately to avoid a politically motivated disagreement.” said Cantrell. “In addition to challenging the merits of the recommendation, we plan to address the COP’s due process violations and the numerous irregularities during the process on appeal.”

Montana Republican Party Chairman Don Kaltschmidt called the recommendation “absurd” and accused the panel of being Democrats “looking to advance their electoral interests.”

“They could have ended this witch hunt two years ago, just as their own special counsel recommended, but they tried to delay it for maximum political gain,” Kaltschmidt said in a statement.

RLDE 2021 (with order)