(C) Daily Montanan This story was originally published by Daily Montanan and is unaltered. . . . . . . . . . . Knudsen's defense of his actions is long on sentiment, but short on the law – Daily Montanan [1] ['More From Author', 'December', 'Darrell Ehrlick'] Date: 2023-12-14 If Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen did nothing else correctly in his battle with the state bar and the Montana Supreme Court, give him credit for at least hiring a lawyer much more skilled than himself for a defense. As most Montanans know, Knudsen faces a 41-count ethics complaint, unusual in so many ways, and sweeping in its allegations. You may recall that the complaints against him include refusing to comply with the Supreme Court’s orders, even putting out press releases saying his office wouldn’t obey. That was followed by an incident where he refused to turn over documents and materials that were seized by an invalid subpoena, and then retaining the documents despite court orders. Not exactly a misunderstanding. Billings attorney Mark Parker does a masterful job in his response on behalf of Knudsen by addressing everything but the issue at hand. While Knudsen’s defense of his indefensible behavior sounds appealing, like his strident use of the First Amendment as well as invoking his duty and obligation to his client, the great people of Montana, the complaint is sentimental bluster that completely misses the mark. Parker’s and Knudsen’s defense seems to reinforce a popular legal maxim: When you don’t have the law on your side, pound the facts. When you don’t have the facts on your side, pound the law. When you don’t have either on your side, pound the table. Knudsen, in his defense, paints an eloquent portrait of a patriot simply defending his clients and using his God-given – possibly God-inspired – First Amendment rights to push back against those black-robed legal bureaucrats on the Supreme Court. Yet, the complaint completely misses the fact that Knudsen is not on trial necessarily for using the First Amendment, which even he should know has limits. Nor would anyone fault him for defending the Legislature, which seems like a never-ending job these days. Instead, Knudsen is charged with using his powers as an attorney inappropriately. And therein lies the issue: The Montana Supreme Court has not targeted him or speech. The Montana Bar has simply said that he has misused his privileges as a member of the bar. Keep in mind that Knudsen has voluntarily chosen to be a lawyer. The state did not compel him to go to law school. The state did not demand that he pass the bar and become a member. The state didn’t require him to run for attorney general. Knudsen did that voluntarily. As such, Knudsen, along with every other lawyer in the state, voluntarily chooses to agree to the rules of the bar, which I’d argue is pretty darn important: A lawyer should be a model of how to follow the law, if, in fact, they get the privilege – not the right – of practicing law. As an attorney, part of the agreement is that lawyers will agree to the rules of the bar, which include obeying the commands of courts, including the Montana Supreme Court, even if they disagree, which is not illegal. However, they must follow those laws and orders and not undermine the court. To do so would be to create chaos and disrupt the judicial system. Taken to its logical and final conclusion: To willfully ignore a court order, even after it has been settled, is illegal. A criminal could not just ignore his own conviction, nor could he choose not to go to jail. That’s ridiculous, but that is the approach Knudsen seems to be taking. Furthermore, Knudsen seems to fail to grasp a concept so basic that you don’t need a law-school education to grasp: When you join certain groups or work in a certain profession, you trade or limit your rights for the benefit of that privilege. Just like a doctor agrees to keep confidentiality of patients, so too does an attorney agree to limit the public comments and reactions to the court, a very limited modification of free speech in certain specific contexts. Both are understandable, narrow limitations. While ignoring the fact that no court, including the U.S. Supreme Court, has found any judicial misconduct as Knudsen’s defense claims, the power and privilege to represent a client, like the First Amendment right to free speech, is not unconditional or without limits. Knudsen and his henchwoman, Kris Hansen, the late former Deputy Attorney General, went far beyond a vigorous defense: They openly – on state letterhead no less – told the Montana Supreme Court that they were ignoring its order and they would not follow it. I would argue if the state’s highest court and the Montana bar did not challenge this action, it would leave a dangerous precedent where any lawyer could ignore or advise their client to ignore any adverse ruling in the name of a “vigorous defense.” Again, the logical conclusion of Knudsen’s defense is chaos and lawlessness, the very antithesis of a functioning judicial system. While the Montana public could have hoped Knudsen’s defense would have helped contextualize the unusual and provocative stances taken by the embattled attorney general, it has instead raised more questions about Knudsen’s very understanding of the law. [END] --- [1] Url: https://dailymontanan.com/2023/12/14/knudsens-defense-of-his-actions-is-long-on-sentiment-but-short-on-the-law/ Published and (C) by Daily Montanan Content appears here under this condition or license: Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds: gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/montanan/