In ethics hearing, Montana attorney general defends 'sharp' words, refusal to obey court order
Republican Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen, center, is sworn into office, Jan. 4, 2021, inside the Montana State Capitol building in Helena, Montana. (Photo by Thom Bridge/The Independent Record via the Associated Press)
Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen denied that his office was disrespectful, intemperate and contemptuous in questioning during an ethics hearing Wednesday.
Knudsen defended his actions in a 2021 subpoena battle in a hearing before the Montana Supreme Court’s Commission on Practice, report Montana Public Radio, the Associated Press and the Montana Free Press.
Knudsen is facing ethics charges for making “undignified” comments, for accusing state supreme court justices of impropriety, and for refusing to obey court orders.
The charges stem from the attorney general’s representation of the state legislature as it sought emails from a court administrator. The emails concerned the administrator’s polling of members of the Montana Judges Association about a bill changing how judges are chosen.
Knudsen’s office had declared that it did not recognize a court order staying enforcement of a legislative subpoena as binding, and it would not abide by it.
The office also described a court order on legislative subpoenas as “ludicrous” and “outside the bounds of rational thought.” The office later filed a motion alleging that the state supreme court should recuse itself because of an “obvious conflict of interest” and “actual impropriety.”
In the October hearing, Knudsen said he was zealously representing his client, the legislature, in an unprecedented case, according to Montana Public Radio.
“At the time, my client had a bona fide, genuine belief that that order was not valid. And that was what we were instructed, that’s what my office was instructed, to press that position,” Knudsen said.
Knudsen did say, however, his office could have dialed back the rhetoric, according to the AP.
“If I’m being really honest, in hindsight, I think a lot of things could have been done differently and probably should have been done different here,” Knudsen said. “If I had this to do over, I probably would not have allowed language like this—so sharp—to be used. But we and our client truly felt that we were in an absolutely novel situation of constitutional emergency and this is the language that went out.”
