Montanas highest court has issued its final ruling in the professional conduct case against Attorney General Austin Knudsen dismissing the complaint without taking any further disciplinary action against him.The Montana Supreme Court rejected a recommendation from a panel of the state Commission on Practice, which called for suspending Knudsens law license for 90 days over his handling of a long-running legal dispute between the Legislature and the judicial branch.(WATCH: Montana Supreme Court issues ruling on AG Knudsen complaint) Montana Supreme Court issues ruling on AG Knudsen complaintChief Justice Cory Swanson, who authored the majority opinion, said Knudsen had violated some of the ethical rules that govern attorneys conduct, but that the Commission on Practice had also violated his due process rights during the disciplinary proceedings.We could remand this case to the Commission for further proceedings, Swanson wrote. However, this would serve no purpose except to increase the already significant amount of time, effort, and expense incurred. Prudence dictates this litigation must end. Therefore, we hereby dismiss this case and deny the Commissions bill of costs. Swanson said Knudsen had taken actions during the dispute beyond what we have seen any competent attorney, let alone the Attorney General, do, but that there was no justification for additional discipline at this time.While we have dismissed this case with no further proceedings to occur, the extensive litigation with numerous hearings playing out in public for years, coupled with our Opinion and Order finding violations, is far worse and a more informative sanction than the originally contemplated private admonition would have been, he said. Accordingly, this Opinion and Order suffices as the Courts public admonition regarding the rule violations. Moreover, we plainly warn all Montana attorneys, including Knudsen and his subordinates, to obey lawful orders of all courts.Knudsens office released a statement from him on Wednesday, praising the courts ruling on what he called a highly irregular complaint.I appreciate the Supreme Court bringing this frivolous complaint to a long-overdue conclusion, Knudsen said. We've said it from the very beginning, this was nothing more than a political stunt. I'm glad this distraction is behind us as we continue our work at the Department of Justice to keep Montana the best place to live and raise a family." The Supreme Court released its opinion nine months after hearing oral arguments in the case. Because the case dealt with the court itself, most justices recused themselves. Swanson and Justice Katherine Bidegaray, who were not on the court at the time of the dispute, heard it alongside five district court judges.The case dates back to 2021, when Knudsen represented Republican legislators who issued subpoenas for and received internal emails from Supreme Court justices, lower court judges and judicial branch staff. They were seeking information on whether judges had expressed opinions on proposed bills the Legislature was considering, arguing that the practice created concerns about due process and impartiality when the bills faced legal challenges in their courts.The Montana Supreme Court blocked the subpoenas, ruling they exceeded the Legislatures authority. Knudsen asked the court multiple times to reconsider, and eventually asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene. In filings and letters, he and attorneys working for him repeatedly criticized the courts actions, arguing it was inappropriate for them to rule on a case that dealt with their own policy and employees. A complaint was filed against Knudsen with the Commission on Practice. It claimed that he and his attorneys had violated the rules of professional conduct for lawyers, by disobeying an obligation from a court and by making statements about judges integrity that were false or made with reckless disregard of whether they were true or false.Knudsen defended himself, saying the actions he took were all in good faith and that they had to be considered in context of what he called an unprecedented and politically charged situation.In October 2024, the members of an adjudicatory panel ruled that Knudsen had disregarded the Supreme Courts order by not immediately returning the emails at issue, and that the language he implemented, endorsed or ratified in response to the Court violated his obligations as an attorney.Read the full ruling from the Montana Supreme Court: In his decision, Swanson concluded Knudsen had violated the rule against knowingly disobeying an obligation when he didnt return the emails. However, while Swanson called Knudsens criticisms of the court and individual justices extraordinarily inflammatory, he ruled those statements did not violate the rules of professional conduct, because the Commission on Practice hadnt shown they were false or were beyond opinion or hyperbole.That is a sobering thought, wrote Swanson. Any punishment of Knudsen must be tailored only to his proven violations and not an exactment of revenge or vindication for his criticism of the Court.Swanson also criticized the adjudicatory panels decision, saying it didnt provide sufficient legal analysis for how Knudsen violated some of the rules they cited. He wrote the Court was mystified by the decision and appellate record, and that it hadnt given Knudsen a fair chance to prepare an appeal. The five district judges who heard the case concurred with Swansons decision. One of them, Judge Paul Sullivan of Flathead County, issued his own concurring decision, saying he would have preferred to dismiss the complaint entirely on the basis that all of the branches of government had departed from norms during this dispute and that the court could set a better example by exercising restraint.Bidegaray dissented from Swansons decision, saying she would have supported a 30-day suspension for Knudsen. She wrote that she would have found that Knudsen violated one additional rule, saying that his refusal to follow the courts order on the emails was prejudicial to the administration of justice.Bidegaray said she disagreed that the Commission on Practices procedures had deprived Knudsen of due process. She said a complete dismissal of the complaint was out of proportion with any errors identified.Dismissal is not merely a decision to impose no sanction; it nullifies the proceedings themselves, she wrote. Nothing in Montana law authorizes dismissal where the attorney received notice, a full hearing, and appellate review, and where this Court finds proven violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Such a remedy is incompatible with our constitutional obligation to regulate the bar and protect the public. The courts decision drew praise Wednesday from many Republican elected officials.The Supreme Court's vindication of Attorney General Austin Knudsen is the right decision, Senate President Sen. Matt Regier, R-Kalispell, said in a statement. The process itself was weaponized as political retaliation for the AG doing his job representing the Legislature, and I'm glad to see the Court put an end to it. We must draw a bright line for the public between true ethical violations in government and manufactured controversies like the Office of Disciplinary Counsel and Commission on Practice's shameful political persecution of Austin Knudsen.Attorney General Knudsen acted within his constitutional authority and in defense of the separation of powers, said House Speaker Rep. Brandon Ler, R-Savage. Attempts to punish an elected official for standing up to judicial overreach undermine our system of government and the will of the people. House Republicans stand firmly with Attorney General Knudsen and appreciate the Courts careful review and ultimate dismissal of these complaints.Todays Montana Supreme Court decision is a win for the rule of law, Gov. Greg Gianfore said in a post on X. With these complaints dismissed, I look forward to continuing our work with Attorney General Knudsen to serve Montanans and their families.EDITOR'S NOTE: This story has been updated to include additional details about justices' rulings, and reaction from elected officials. ...read more read less