IN THE MATTER OF AUSTIN MILES KNUDSEN, An Attorney At Law

IN THE MATTER OF AUSTIN MILES KNUDSEN, An Attorney At Law. Oral Argument is set for Friday, March 28, 2025, at 9:30 a.m. in the courtroom of the Montana Supreme Court, Joseph P. Mazurek Justice Building, Helena, Montana. The Office of Disciplinary Counsel charged Attorney General Austin Knudsen with 41 counts of misconduct due to actions taken by Knudsen and attorneys under his supervision in relation to two legal matters: Brown v. Gianforte , in which Knudsen appeared as counsel of record on behalf of Governor Gianforte, and McLaughlin v. Montana State Legislature , in which Knudsen appeared on behalf of the Legislature. An adjudicatory panel of the Commission on Practice found ODC and Knudsen largely agreed as to what conduct occurred but disagreed whether the conduct violated the Montana Rules of Professional Conduct. The allegedly unprofessional conduct included: Knudsen’s office declaring that the Legislature would not abide by an Order of the Montana Supreme Court; Knudsen accusing the Court of being irrational, ludicrous, and engaged in judicial misconduct; Knudsen accusing the Court of biased, self-serving rulings; Knudsen accusing the Court of factual misstatements and misconduct; and Knudsen failing to comply with a court order requiring the immediate return of inappropriately disclosed documents. The Commission concluded Knudsen violated five rules of professional conduct and recommended he be suspended from the practice of law for 90 days. Knudsen objects to the Commission’s conclusions and recommendation. In addition to denying that his conduct violated any rules of professional conduct, Knudsen alleges the Commission violated his due process rights, improperly excluded evidence, and failed to adequately set forth its reasoning regarding its conclusions of law. Knudsen further argues the Attorney General cannot be subject to discipline by the Commission because that implicates separation of powers. He also argues that, if the rules limit what he can say about court rulings, then the rules violate his First Amendment rights. Finally, he argues a 90-day suspension would be extreme and disproportionate discipline that would exacerbate the conflict between the branches of government.