Home Politics Live Elections Judicial committee suggests a 90-day suspension of Montana’s Attorney General from legal practice.

Judicial committee suggests a 90-day suspension of Montana’s Attorney General from legal practice.

0

HELENA, Montana — A judicial review panel in Montana has recommended a 90-day suspension for the state’s Republican attorney general, Austin Knudsen, following his blatant disregard for court directives and repeated disparagement of the judiciary’s integrity regarding a law that empowers the state’s Republican governor to appoint judges directly. This law is part of a broader initiative by the GOP nationwide to cultivate a more conservative judiciary and was ultimately supported by Montana’s Supreme Court.

Both parties involved have a 30-day window from Wednesday’s announcement to voice their objections to the panel’s recommendation, followed by another 30 days to address any objections raised, before a decision is made by the Supreme Court. In a recent development, three justices announced their intention to recuse themselves from the case, which likely means that state District Court judges will step in to consider the matter.

If Knudsen’s law license is indeed suspended, it could hinder his responsibilities as attorney general. According to Montana’s Constitution, the attorney general must be an “attorney in good standing” who has been actively practicing law for a minimum of five years prior to election. Emilee Cantrell, a spokesperson for the Department of Justice, stated that the office is contesting the proposed suspension, opting to support a 2022 investigation’s recommendation for a more private resolution, which the judicial panel has previously dismissed.

The panel concluded that there was compelling evidence that Knudsen’s office had consistently breached professional conduct guidelines, justifying the suggestion of severe penalties. They rejected the notion that holding Knudsen accountable could lead to additional repercussions, as their focus was solely on potential violations of the Montana Rules of Professional Conduct.

In previous court documentation, Knudsen’s office accused the state Supreme Court justices of serious misconduct, including corruption and conflicts of interest. During a hearing earlier this month, Knudsen admitted that his office could have conducted its representation of the Legislature more appropriately, stating, “If I had this to do over, I probably would not have allowed language like this — so sharp — to be used.” Nonetheless, the panel indicated that he consistently refused to acknowledge that any of his actions or statements in court filings were against professional conduct laws.

The controversy traces back to 2021 when the Legislature sought to abolish the Judicial Nomination Commission tasked with vetting judicial candidates. During this process, lawmakers discovered that a Supreme Court administrator had utilized state resources to survey judges about the legislation on behalf of the Montana Judges Association. After the administrator claimed to have deleted related emails, the Legislature issued a subpoena to the Department of Administration, retrieving a batch of 5,000 emails promptly. The administrator was unaware of the subpoena until after the emails were provided to lawmakers in April 2021.

In the same month, the Supreme Court temporarily nullified the subpoena, an order that the attorney general’s office claimed it “does not recognize.” By July 2021, the court mandated that the emails be returned swiftly, yet Knudsen’s office delayed compliance until March and April of the following year, right after the U.S. Supreme Court opted not to hear the ensuing case. The defiance against a court order without an appeal for a stay was described by the review panel as “beyond the pale.”

The situation isn’t the only incident overshadowing Knudsen’s tenure, as he aims for reelection. He has faced accusations regarding his attempts to persuade a Helena hospital to administer a controversial drug to a COVID-19 patient. His office also extended support to an individual who threatened violence over a mask mandate during the pandemic. Furthermore, Knudsen attempted to obstruct three constitutional initiatives on the ballot and strategically placed a nominal opponent in the June primary to bolster his fundraising efforts. He was also embroiled in legal disputes after mandating the resignation of the head of the Montana Highway Patrol.