Montana

The biggest public secret in Montana is one that has no easy answer • Daily Montanan

Published

1 year ago

October 3, 2024

The biggest public secret in Montana is one that has no easy answer • Daily Montanan

I’ll let you in on a little media secret: One of the most asked questions we get is exactly the one we can’t answer.

Here’s the question we get a lot, and we’re not alone in our inability to get answers: How much does the state of Montana spend on attorneys defending itself in court?

I get the question. The number of jobs the state has single-handedly created for attorneys should help boost the state’s monthly jobs and unemployment rate statistics. For four years of Republican control in almost all aspects of government, no bad idea has been denied the opportunity of legislation.

A lot of nonsense flew through the Legislature to the open arms of Gov. Greg Gianforte, who seemed only too happy to add his signature for the sake of furthering the alleged Republican mandate. For example, the Montana Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed its decision to keep abortion legal through the 1999 case Armstrong vs. State of Montana, which hasn’t seemed to dampen the Republican enthusiasm to pass bills to restrict the practice, and thereby re-test the resolve of the courts. That has literally cost the taxpayers of Montana millions by re-litigating that which was already well established.

The logic, if you’ll excuse the abuse of that word, is that even the lawmakers know much of what they’re passing runs contrary to case law and the Constitution. That doesn’t matter. Their own legal staff have expressed concerns through legal notes. That doesn’t matter either.

These are show-bills that demonstrate how committed Republicans are to their own policies and satisfying a riled-up base. What happens after that truly becomes a matter for the courts and the state’s treasury.

The danger and fallacy of a supermajority is the belief that just because Montanans have generally supported Republicans, they support every single position that Republicans coalesce around. There are notable exceptions, for example, support for public lands even though the GOP has tried to curtail our natural resources and access. And, of course, Montanans seemed repeatedly enthusiastic about marijuana, leading to a tug-of-war where the people won the right to weed and the state’s coffers filled with a different type of green, despite the GOP’s attempts at paternalism.

But the challenge with all these challenges is that the taxpaying Montana public is supporting a cottage industry centering on state litigation, but no one — and I mean no one — can say what that means for certain. In other words, how much is bad legislation costing us?

Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen can hold onto his cowboy hat at this point: As much as he continues to add his name to any lawsuit that would seem to antagonize the Biden administration throughout the country, he’s got plenty of work here at home. And he doesn’t necessarily have a choice.

The Attorney General, by definition, is forced to defend the state, and by extension, the lawmakers who author and support some of these legally dubious bills, as well as the poor bureaucrats who are tasked with implementing them.

There have been so many lawsuits, it’s hard to track them all. Two years ago, after the contentious 2021 Legislature, we were tracking more than 40 lawsuits dealing with the state, the Gianforte administration and the courts.

One may think the exercise should be as easy as looking toward the state’s budget for the Montana Department of Justice and finding the literal bottom line. But that ignores how most people think the Montana Attorney General’s Office works and how it actually works in practice.

We get asked: How many lawsuits is the state fighting? How much has Montana spent on outside counsel? How much have these struck-down bills cost us?

We don’t know. We have asked repeatedly, and by “we,” I mean multiple members of the media.

The problem is one of budgets and categories. When asking the Legislative Auditor about it, they said the answer is not clear, and that Austin Amestoy of Montana Public Radio wrote a story about it a couple of years ago where the best he could do was estimate.

I have been and continue to be critical of the way Knudsen handles the Attorney General’s Office, but this time, he probably has a point.

Lawsuits come to his office in a variety of ways — from direct challenges to other officials getting sued in their official capacity, which then obligates the state’s legion of attorneys, housed under the Attorney General, to defend them. Which department specifically pays the bills depends on how the lawsuit is filed.

The other complicating factor, of course, is that sometimes the costs are borne by in-house counsel — that is, attorneys who work for Knudsen. Some other times, the counsel comes from the private sector.

And as anyone who has ever covered a lawsuit knows, the courts have their own pace, which can grind along for years, but the attorneys submit bills every month. Those attorney billing cycles may not overlap with budget years neatly. Now, compound that by dozens of cases and getting any sort of answer about how much we’re spending becomes nearly impossible.

So, this isn’t the case of government officials trying to “hide the ball” so as not to cause sticker-shock at the amount of taxpayer money we’re spending on attorneys.

Yet maybe the “how much” question, though, isn’t quite as important as the question: Why have we seen such a dramatic rise in challenged legislation? Or, what do Montanans have to show for all this legislation besides mounting legal costs?

Source link

Click to comment

Montana

Apparent AI Glitch in Filing by Montana Public Defender, Recent Congressional Candidate

Published

8 hours ago

March 2, 2026

Press Room

Apparent AI Glitch in Filing by Montana Public Defender, Recent Congressional Candidate

Everyone makes mistakes, even experienced professionals; a good reminder for the rest of us to learn from those mistakes. The motion in State v. Stroup starts off well in its initial pages (no case law hallucinations), but is then followed by several pages of two other motions, which I don’t think the lawyer was planning to file, and which appear to have been AI-generated: It begins with the “Below is concise motion language you can drop into …” language quoted above.

Griffen Smith (Missoulian) reported on the story, and included the prosecutor’s motion to strike that filing, on the grounds that it violates a local rule (3(G)) requiring disclosure of the use of generative AI:

The document does not include a generative artificial intelligence disclosure as required. However, page 7 begins as follows: “Below is concise motion language you can drop into a ‘Motion to Admit Mental-Disease Evidence and for Related Instructions’ keyed to 45-6-204, 45-6-201, and 4614-102. Adjust headings/captions to your local practice.” Page 10 states “Below is a full motion you can paste into your pleading, then adjust names, dates, and styles to fit local practice.” These pages also include several apparent hyperlinks to “ppl-ai-file-upload.s3.amazonaws,” “ppl-ai-fileupload.s3.amazonaws+1,” and others. The document includes what appears to be an attempt at a second case caption on page 12. It is not plausible on its face that any source other than generative AI would have created such language for a filed version of a brief….

There’s more in that filing, but here’s one passage:

While generative AI can be a useful tool for some purposes and may have greater application in the future, when used improperly, and without meaningful review, it can ultimately damage both the perception and the reality of the profession. One assumes that Mr. Stroup has had, or will at some point have, an opportunity to review the filing made on his behalf. What impression could a review of pgs. 12-19 leave upon a defendant who struggles with paranoia and delusional thinking? While AI could theoretically one day become a replacement for portions of staff of experienced attorneys, it is readily apparent that this day has not yet arrived.

The Missoulan article includes this response:

In a Wednesday interview, Office of Public Defender Division Administrator Brian Smith told the Missoulian the AI-generated language was inadvertently included in an unrelated filing. And he criticized the county attorney’s office for filing a “four-page diatribe about the dangers of AI” instead of working with the defense to correct her mistake.
“That’s not helping the client or the case,” Smith said, “and all you are doing is trying to throw a professional colleague under the bus.”

As I mentioned, the lawyer involved seems quite experienced, and ran for the Montana Public Service Commission in 2020 (getting nearly 48% of the vote) and for the House of Representatives in Montana’s first district in 2022 (getting over 46% of the vote) and in 2024 (getting over 44%). “Его пример другим наука,” Pushkin wrote in Eugene Onegin—”May his example profit others,” in the Falen translation.

Thanks to Matthew Monforton for the pointer.

Source link

Montana

Your guide to local sports events, plus what’s on TV

Published

21 hours ago

March 2, 2026

Press Room

Your guide to local sports events, plus what’s on TV

State

Zip Code

Country

Source link

Montana

Montana Department of Agriculture focusing on innovation in 2026

Published

1 day ago

March 1, 2026

Press Room

Montana Department of Agriculture focusing on innovation in 2026

HELENA — You probably have goals and plans for 2026—the Montana Department of Agriculture does too.

“We’re really focusing on innovative agricultural practices,” Montana Department of Agriculture director Jillien Streit said.

It’s no secret that agriculture—farming and ranching—is not easy. There are long days, planning, monitoring crops and livestock, and other challenges beyond farmers’ and ranchers’ control.

(WATCH: Montana Department of Agriculture focusing on innovation in 2026)

Montana Department of Agriculture focusing on innovation in 2026

“We have very low commodity prices across the board,” Streit said. “We still have very high input prices across the board, and we have really high prices when it comes to our equipment, and so, it’s a really tough year.”

But innovation, including new practices, partnerships and technology use, can help navigate some of those challenges.

“We can’t make more time and we can’t make more land, so we need to start putting together innovative practices that help us maximize what our time and land can do,” Streit said.

Practices range from using technology like autonomous tractors and virtual fencing—allowing rangers to contain and move cattle right from their phones—to regenerative farming and ranching.

“It is bringing cattle back into farming operations to be able to work with cover cropping practices to invigorate the soil for new soil health benefits,” Streit said.

The Montana Department of Agriculture is working to help producers learn, share, and collaborate on new ideas to work in their operations.

The department will share stories of practices that work from farms and ranches across the state. Also, within the next year or so, Streit said the department is hoping to roll out technology to help producers collaborate.

“(It’s) providing a communication platform where people can get together and really help each other out by utilizing each other’s assets,” she said.

While not easy, agriculture is still one of Montana’s largest industries, and Streit said innovating and sharing ideas across the state can keep it going long into the future.

Source link