Minnesota Lawyer Blog

Those of you who are following news of judicial elections in other states may be interested to know that the U.S. Supreme Court last Friday accepted certiorari in the case of Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Company, which I discussed here. The plaintiffs, who argue that campaign donations to the justices created the appearance of impropriety amounting to a due process violation, are represented by former Solicitor General Theodore Olson. According to the New York Times, Olson said in his pleadings, “The issue raised by massive campaign contributions to judges from litigants and their attorneys go to the very heart of what it means to be given a fair trial.” The defendants argued that “looks bad” is not a test of due process.

Minnesota Lawyer is currently soliciting nominations for its annual "Attorneys of the Year" award. If you know of someone who had a really good year (or did a lot of good this year, for that matter), let us know about it. Click here for more information about the award and to submit a nomination online. You can also e-mail information (to mark.cohen@minnlawyer.com) or send it to us by regular mail at:

c/o Editorial Department
730 2nd Ave. South, Suite 100
Minneapolis, MN 55402

Nominations are due by Dec. 11.

I attended a CLE yesterday where a Hennepin County judicial law clerk discussed the fact that more and more parties are choosing to represent themselves in court proceedings.

I’m sure that at least part of the reason for the increasing numbers of pro se litigants is the economy. Many people simply can’t afford to hire an attorney, which is particularly distressing if they are facing the loss of basic needs like shelter, safety, health care and child custody.

While everyone has the “right” to represent themselves, we in the legal community know that it can be a problem -- for the judges who handle the matters and for the lawyers on the other side who struggle with how much, if any, assistance to provide the pro se party. It’s also a problem for the pro se litigants themselves in that they may not get a fair shake due to their unfamiliarity with court procedures and the law that applies to their case.

To address the growing problem of pro se and unrepresented litigants, the American Bar Association Section of Litigation is holding a two-day symposium on the topic early next month. The seminar will address what the lawyers can do to help overcome the barriers of access to justice, and how the legal community can provide a right to legal counsel in order to assure that people are treated fairly in adversarial proceedings, especially given financial tightening by government.

“Real People, Real Needs, Real Solutions: Access to Legal Representation in Civil Litigation” will be held in Atlanta on Dec. 4-5. For more information on the symposium, click here.

Here's an interesting piece of news we received in a press release from the Hennepin County District Court today:

Judge Marilyn Kaman, Hennepin County District Court, is one of 15 finalists for the 7-member United Nations Appeals Tribunal (UNAT), part of a new system for the administration of internal justice at the United Nations.

The UNAT will be charged with hearing appeals of decisions on employment disputes from the UN system worldwide. The UN’s Internal Justice Council received 237 applications from professional judges in 55 countries.

Applicants were required to have at least 15 years judicial experience, were of high moral character, serve with full judicial independence, and were subject to a rigorous screening process involving both written and oral examination.

Chief Justice EricMagnuson remarked, "The Minnesota Judicial Branch is proud of the international recognition afforded to our judges, and of the willingness of those judges to serve above and beyond the call. Judge Kaman is an excellent example of both sources of pride."

The historic recount in the U.S. Senate race between Al Franken and Norm Coleman is under way in St. Paul, and officials at the 100 recount sites are taking the process seriously: In Stearns County, the opening of a sealed box of ballots was shown live on the St. Cloud Times’ web site.

Meanwhile at our sister publication, Politics in Minnesota, it’s reported that Franken’s legal team too issue with former state attorney general Ken Raschke’s opinion on whether Minnesota law allows the review of rejected absentee ballots. Raschke’s thoughts were solicited by Secretary of State Mark Ritchie.

Among other things, Rashcke points out that Minnesota Stat. 204C.35 says that “only the ballots cast in the election and the summary statements certified by the election judges may be considered in the recount process.”

Attorneys for Franken’s campaign countered that Raschke’s opinion “incorrectly leaves the distinct impression that the recount cannot include the review of and the counting any absentee ballot wrongly rejected during the election judges’ initial counting of the ballots.”

Yesterday the National Association of Women Lawyers released the results of its third national Survey on Retention and Promotion of Women in Law Firms and the news isn’t good.

The 2008 survey shows that women continue to be markedly under-represented in the upper levels of law firms. The majority of women who start as associates in firms do not reach the position of equity partners; law firm leaders, including governing committees and managing partners, are overwhelmingly male.

Highlights of the survey findings include the following facts:

For more than two decades women have graduated from law schools and started careers in private practice at about the same rate as men, yet women continue to be markedly under-represented in the leadership ranks of firms, accounting for fewer than 16% of equity partners.

Only about 6% of law firms report that they have a woman in the highest leadership position of managing partner. The highest governing committee in large firms typically counts only one or two women members although governing committees average 11 to 12 members.

The percentage of women lawyers of color is greatest in the associate category (11%) as compared to women of color who are non-equity partners (3%) or equity partners (1.4%).
The market for lateral partners impacts promotion to equity partner. Laterals account for roughly two-thirds of the women and three-quarters of the men who were newly promoted to an equity position. A startling 31% of new equity partners were recent laterals, suggesting that they were specifically recruited or negotiated for an equity position. The data belie the traditional notion that largely homegrown attorneys are promoted to equity partner.

The survey has captured data on a newly identified category of law firm: the “mixed-tier” firm. In the mixed-tier firm, all “equity” partners are required to contribute capital to the firm but some of them are paid as if they were income partners. About 15% of the nation’s largest firms are mixed-tier firms and preliminary data indicate that women have a somewhat lower chance of advancing to equity partner in mixed-tier firms.

There is evidence that more recent women graduates are being promoted to equity partner at a somewhat greater rate. These numbers show, however, that even in the best of circumstances, women are promoted to equity partner at only about half the rate as men.

At every stage of practice, men out-earn women lawyers, a finding that is consistent with NAWL’S previous surveys and data from other sources. Male equity partners earn on average over $87,000 a year more than female equity partners.

Nearly 97% of large firms have implemented women’s initiatives, which provide a combination of programs on professional development, networking, mentoring and/or business development. Given that women’s initiatives and formal programs for business development skills are relatively new activities in firms, it is too early to say whether these various programs will enhance the level of business development among women lawyers.

For the full NAWL survey visit: http://www.nawl.org/Assets/Documents/2008+Survey.pdf. In addition, NAWL's July 2008 report from its National Leadership Summit, Actions for Advancing Women Into Law Firm Leadership: http://www.nawl.org/Assets/Summit+Report+2008.pdf, provides a list of recommended actions for law firms committed to advancing women into leadership positions.

I have a modest proposal for resolving whether Norm Coleman or Al Franken should represent our fair state in the U.S. Senate for the next six years -- a coin toss.

Let me explain.

First of all, all of this back and forth about the relevance of the DFL ties of Secretary of State Mark Ritchie to his role in the recount misses the point. Even if Ritchie were they type of old-style politician to try to bend the entire process to his party's will -- and I don't think he is -- the other four members of the Canvassing Board serve as a sufficient check to prevent that. I cannot imagine Supreme Court Chief Justice Eric Magnuson, Supreme Court Justice G. Barry Anderson and Ramsey District Court Judges Kathleen Gearin and Ed Cleary would stand idly by and allow such a subversion of the process to happen. The two high court justices are both Republican appointees who have done well rising above politics in their judicial roles; Cleary used to head the office charged with overseeing the ethics of all the state's lawyers. If those are supposed to be the co-conspirators that Ritchie hand selected to lead a DFL coup of the democratic process, he ought to be upbraided for his incompetent team-selection skills rather than for his Machiavellian maneuvers. In reality, I think the secretary of state is committed to running a clean process. While there is certainly some subjectivity in declaring which debatable votes should count and which ones shouldn't -- and it's impossible to predict at this point how those calls will affect the final result -- I am reasonably confident at this point that those decisions won't be made on a partisan basis.

An army of lawyers and lay observers will be watching the actual ballot recounts, mitigating the chances for any serious hanky panky at that level.

That leaves human error. Even if the hand recount of the 2.8 million ballots is 99.9 percent accurate, that means that 2,800 votes will be inaccurately tallied. When the candidates are only separated by a paltry 200 votes or so, the odds that we will send the right man to the Senate (i.e. the candidate who would be declared the winner in a completely error-free count) are only marginally better than the result that would be generated by random chance. Which gets me to my point. A coin toss would be a lot cheaper, swifter and more certain than any recount could ever be. So let's do it: Heads Coleman, tails Franken ...

This proposal is, of course, being made tongue in cheek. A recount is required by law in this situation -- and is needed to determine whether there were any glitches or irregularities in the election process that would demonstrate that there is a more statistically significant margin of votes separating Coleman and Franken. In any case, people will be presumably be more willing to accept the result of the recount because -- even if it isn't -- it at least has the appearance of not being as random as the coin toss. Whatever the recount result, we are likely to be stuck with a bevy of related litigation for some time to come.

Of course, even if we were to adopt the coin toss as our method of resolving elections this close, I am not sure we could keep the lawyers out of it. There would likely be lawsuits over who gets to do the toss, who gets heads and who gets tails and which coin to use (e.g. A penny? Sorry, Lincoln was a Republican. A dime? Sorry, FDR was a Democrat).

Perhaps we should make that a game of "rock, paper scissors" instead ...

Delivering the keynote address at Dorsey & Whitney 's 19th annual corporate counsel symposium earlier today, author and legendary journalist Bob Woodward cracked a couple of jokes and shared his thoughts on President George W. Bush and the war in Iraq. The following clip is an excerpt of Woodward's speech, delivered at the Hyatt Regency in downtown Minneapolis.



For the YouTube version, click here.

Today Dorsey & Whitney's is having its annual Corporate Counsel Symposium, which is a good way to keep up on some of the major corporate law issues. Dorsey also traditionally has some prominent keynote speakers at the event's luncheon. Two years ago it was former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright; last year it was former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin; this year it's legendary journalist Bob Woodward.

We at Minnesota Lawyer thought we might take some video of Woodward's speech so that we could put a clip on this blog for those of you who wanted to get a taste. Being the polite folks we are, we ran it by the Dorsey folks to make sure that was OK.

No problem, we were told, so long as we would only be using brief excerpts. It seems that the journalist instrumental in breaking Watergate restricts the amount of taping that can be done when he speaks. Fortunately, this idea never occurred to President Nixon ...

Congratulations are due to St. Paul attorney Hugh Markley, who was honored last weekend by the Ramsey County Bar Association for more than three decades of pro bono work on behalf of Southern Minnesota Regional Legal Services.

Markley received the Ramsey County Bar Association's 2008 Pro Bono Award at the recent Bench & Bar Benefit in Roseville. Taking time out from his general practice, Markley has devoted thousands of hours to taking on family law and child custody cases for low-income clients throughout Ramsey County.

Markley spent time as a foster child, something that has given him a keen appreication of the needs of at-risk kids and families. The current and coming tough economic times mean more and more lawyers like Markley will be needed -- here's hoping he's an inspiration to young and old lawyers alike to give a little bit back.

A sharp-eyed reader noting our headline that said that this year’s appellate races offered few surprises wrote to remind me about Supreme Court races in other states. In a Mississippi race that shows where John Grisham gets his ideas, three justices running for second, eight-year terms lost: Chief Justice Jim Smith lost to Jim Kitchens, Justice Oliver Diaz Jr. lost to Randy “Bubba” Pierce, and Justice Chuck Easley lost to David Chandler. A fourth, Justice Ann Lamar, who was appointed last year by Gov. Haley Barbour, won her race. Diaz was indicted in 2003 in what he calls a political prosecution in connection with a loan to defray campaign debts, and acquitted. He claimed to have been targeted for defeat by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Oddly, the Mississippi Business and Industry Political Education Committee gave Smith a 72 % rating while giving Easley and Diaz 27 and 28 % respectively.The Smith-Kitchens race reportedly cost over $1 million.

In Michigan, Chief Justice Clifford Taylor was defeated by Judge Anne Hathaway, a nominee of the Democratic Party. Reports are Taylor raised over $1.7 million but Hathaway had Bruce Springsteen at a “Vote for Change” concert in which she said her opponent's judicial philosophy is "a death trap, a suicide rap..." An October television ad claimed that Taylor fell asleep during oral argument, which he denied.

In West Virginia, former Chief Justice Elliot Maynard didn’t survive a primary after pictures of him vacationing in Monte Carlo with a business executive who had a pending case came to light. The case, Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Company, is awaiting a possible grant of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court over whether another West Virginia Supreme Court justice must step aside in the case. The Caperton plaintiffs won a $50 million fraud verdict against Massey but the West Virginia court has twice set aside the verdict by a 3-2 majority. According to the New York Times, Justice Brent D. Benjamin, both times a member of the Caperton majority, won his seat with the help of more than $3 million from the same Massey executive who took the former chief justice to Monte Carlo but has refused to recuse himself from cases involving Massey. The Times says the Caperton case turns largely on whether millions of dollars in campaign support from an interested party creates an appearance of impropriety so strong that recusal is required. Two other cases involving West Virginia are pending at the Supreme Court, both of which involve the state’s odd law that denies companies a right to appeal punitive damage awards.)

Some of these justices may have been turned out of office deservedly, but our reader reminds us, brace yourselves, Minnesotans, for 2010 when a majority of the Minnesota Supreme Court will be on the ballot.

As has been reported elsewhere, the recount of the Senate race between Norm Coleman and Al Franken is only the second recount of statewide election results in Minnesota since the 1962 gubernatorial race. The other recount was, of course, just a couple of months ago -- and that came in a judicial election.

As loyal readers of this blog will no doubt recall, Supreme Court Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea faced three challengers in the primary -- public defender Richard Gallo, Minneapolis attorney Jill Clark and Hennepin County District Court Judge Deborah Hedlund. In judicial races, which are nonpartisan, the top two vote-getters earn a place on the November ballot. Gildea finished on top with about 54 percent of the vote; Gallo was the bottom vote-getter with about 11 percent. That left Clark and Hedlund to vie for the second spot on the general election ballot. Statistically, they were both fairly evenly split, with both getting between 17 and 18 percent of the vote. Hedlund had an edge in the unofficial tally -- 1,369 votes of more than 316,000 cast in the race. Because state law requires a recount if an election is decided by less than a .5 percent margin, an automatic recount was triggered. Clark narrowed the margin by just seven votes in the recount, not nearly enough to displace Hedlund as the number two vote-getter. Hedlund went on to the general election, where she lost her challenge against Gildea.

The Coleman/ Franken recount -- which hasn’t even started yet -- has already proved to be a lot less smooth. Last Wednesday morning -- the day after the election -- the unofficial tally had Coleman ahead by 725 votes out of more than 2.8 million cast. However, as counties double check and verify their reporting, Coleman’s lead has shrunk to just 204 votes.

The Coleman/ Franken recount will be much more controversial than the judicial race recount for many reasons, including:

• The margin is much closer -- 204 votes in a race where each candidate has about 1.21 million votes vs. 1,369 votes in a race where the candidates each had between 55,000 and 57,000 votes.
• Primary races tend to be not as closely watched as general election races, since the “winners” only go onto the November ballot rather than into public office.
• Judicial races garner much less attention than presidential, congressional or even state legislative races. We have chronicled on this blog the many ways that this fact is unfortunate, but that doesn't stop it from being true.
• Senate races, unlike judicial races, are partisan. This makes a difference for many reasons. For example, in a nonpartisan race, you don’t have to worry as much that a voting issue in a GOP or DFL stronghold will affect the candidates disproportionately; you also don’t have to worry about politics affecting vote counters’ decisions about which votes to count (and not count).

I could go on, but I think you get the general gist. No matter what happens with this recount (and I have every confidence that Secretary of State Mark Ritchie will do all he can to make it as clean as possible), the race will provide the political blogosphere conspiracy-theory fodder for many years to come.

Conspiracy theories aside, our imperfect system of paper ballots and scanning technology with recounts by hand is just not set up well for elections this close. Even an error of just one vote tabulating every 10,000 recounted will yield a difference of 240 votes when counters are sifting through 2.4 million ballots. Are you confident you could work your way through 10,000 ballots without making a single mistake? I sometimes have difficulty double checking my change when I purchase something. Yet I don’t think many of us at this point want to shift our elections completely over to computers. All it would take would be one really good hacker or one really bad virus to make Joe the Plumber the president of the United States. No thanks!

I think for the time being we are stuck with our imperfect system. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, it’s the worst system in existence, except for all the other systems.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals celebrated its 25th anniversary yesterday.

The Minnesota Lawyer website has posted its judicial election wrap up story. Click here to see it.

All-in-all the election went pretty smoothly. Unlike the primary, there were no recounts necessary -- which is probably for the best given that the Secretary of State's Office is pretty busy with that whole Coleman/Franken recount thing. It's an coincidence that there was no statewide recount necessary in Minnesota for 46 years -- and then within a couple of months of each other we get two, one in a judicial race, one is a Senate race.

Meanwhile, Minneapolis attorney (and former U.S. attorney) Tom Heffelfinger, who was to represent Coleman in the recount, has withdrawn.

"I am committed to a thorough, expeditious, and non-partisan review of the interaction between law enforcement and the community during the RNC. I have realized that taking a leadership role with Senator Coleman’s recount team would interfere with my commitment to the City and the RNC inquiry. Therefore I have informed the Coleman campaign I will not be available for the recount effort," Heffelfinger said in a press release issued today.

We at Minnesota Lawyer were interested in how members of the general public decide whom to cast their ballot for in judicial elections, so we sent intrepid associate editor Barbara Jones -- along with our one-man video crew -- on the road to find out. They stopped off at a polling place in downtown Minneapolis to talk with some voters. As you will find out from this video, judicial election choices can be like sausages, those who love them may not want to see how they are made ...

The judicial election results were no surprise at the appellate level, with the incumbents winning handily in the two contested state Supreme Court races and one contested Court of Appeals races.

Minnesota Supreme Court Justice Paul Anderson skated by his challenger, 9th Judicial District magistrate Tim Tingelstad, by more than a 60/40 margin. A similar margin of victory was enjoyed by Court of Appeals Judge Terri Stoneburner, who turned back a challenge from International Falls attorney Dan Griffith, who was twice before unsuccessfully sought judicial office. (Tingelstad has also made two prior bids for judgeships.)

In the most closely watched appellate race, Supreme Court Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea beat Hennepin County District Court Judge Deborah Hedlund by a 55/45 margin.

In the 2nd Judicial District (Ramsey County), Children's Law Center executive director Gail Chang Bohr pulled off what at least one political insider described as a "shocker" against former state lawmaker Howard Orenstein to fill a vacant judicial seat. Many had assumed Orenstein's name recognition in Ramsey County and knowledge of political campaigns would make him tough to beat. It bears pointing out that Bohr did narrowly miss beating Orienstein in a State Bar poll, and was endorsed by the Pioneer Press, so maybe it was not that much of a surprise. Nonetheless, it was quite an impressive feat for a political (errr... judicial) newcomer.

In the 4th judicial District (Hennepin County), former state lawmaker Jane Ranum prevailed over Hennepin County District Court referee David Piper in the most closely watched race. Ramum and Piper were competing for an open seat. Piper pumped $100,000 of his own money into his campaign war chest, but in the end lost by about 9 percent of the vote to the better-known ex-lawmaker.

In all the other District Court races, the incumbent prevailed. This includes another closely watched race in the 4th Judicial District, where Judge James Swenson turned back a challenge from Thomas Haeg, a former magistrate with the court.

Click here to see the complete breakdown from the Secretary of State's website.

I spent yesterday (and I mean the whole day -- 5:30 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.) working as a Ramsey County election judge, and it was an eye-opening experience.

The precinct where I worked wasn’t even one of the busiest in town, attracting about 1,100 voters during the 13 hours the polls were open. But there was a long line to start the day, and voters came in steady streams throughout.

The evidence that Minnesota saw near-record voter turnout was confirmed by the hundreds of first-time and newly-registered voters, and the willingness of people to go the extra mile to make sure others got a chance to cast a ballot. On a regular basis, registered voters from the neighborhood -- including folks from the precinct’s halfway houses and homeless shelters -- returned to the polls with friends, roommates and neighbors who wanted to vote, too. (Under Minnesota law, a registered voter can “vouch” for the residency of anyone who lives in the same precinct, even if that person doesn’t have a permanent address.)

Even though no TVs or radios were allowed inside the polling place, the stream of new and young voters gave me a strong hunch about how the presidential race would turn out. That hunch was confirmed when, after closing, the precinct’s chief election judge ran the final tally and found that almost 900 voters (more than 80 percent) of voters in this mostly white, overwhelmingly working-class precinct voted for Barack Obama.

The enthusiasm of the voters even carried over into the judicial elections. Many voters who were advised to examine both sides of the ballot were glad to discover they would have a say in who their judges would be, and a few even brought notes into the voting booth based on research they had done on the judicial candidates.

I haven’t been this excited to vote since the first time I cast a ballot, and considering that was for Abraham Lincoln, that’s saying something. It was really fun this morning to be part of the crowd and watch our process. It was a beautiful golden morning and actually a pleasure to stand in line. I got to the polling place about 7:20 and I was about the 250th voter when I got in around 8:00. I live in a precinct near a university so my demographics are skewed, but the vast majority of the group was under 30. That was very cool. A number of people brought their children with them, which I haven’t noticed before, and which was also very cool. However, I thought the woman with three very active little girls who asked the election judges if they had any toys for them was a little odd. Did she think she wasn’t going to have to stand in line? Ditto for the woman with the (non-service) dog. I’m kind of nervous around dogs, even when they are leashed, and I didn’t think the canine needed a civics lesson. But that’s just me. On the other hand, the dog wasn’t questioning anybody’s patriotism.

Thank you to the thousands of dedicated voters who found and used Minnesota Lawyer's online judicial election guide, our website and this blog to get information about the 2008 judicial election. I was heartened to see how many folks out there want to cast a meaningful ballot in the judicial races and availed themselves of the information that we provided. A number of you were kind enough to drop me e-mails and calls to express your gratitude at having this information at your fingertips, to which I can only reply the pleasure was ours.

If I can be allowed the indulgence of making a few thank yous of my own, I would like to recognize the efforts of the judicial candidates for participating; the rest of our editorial staff (particularly our Web editor, Adam Johnson); Bill Klotz, our photographer/ videographer; the IT folks who made this possible; and our publisher, Steve Jahn, and our corporate parent, Dolan Media, for believing this voter-information project was important enough to allow us to dedicate substantial time and resources to it.

This post concludes Minnesota Lawyer's pre-election coverage of the 2008 judicial races. We will, of course, have follow up coverage of the judicial election on our website and in the print edition of Minnesota Lawyer newspaper.

I would also like to take this opportunity to announce that very soon we will be launching a completely revamped version of the Minnesota Lawyer blog with an exciting new look. Stay tuned for details. Thanks again for visiting, and we hope to see you again soon!

-- Mark A. Cohen
Editor-in-chief, Minnesota Lawyer

P.S. Don't forget to vote tomorrow! Click here for more info on the judicial races if you are still doing your research.

The front runner for the honor of the most expensive judicial race this year goes to the contest between David Piper and Jane Ranum for an open seat on the Hennepin County District Court. So far, $203,728 has been raised for that race. Most of the money has been raised by Piper, whose $168,760 in contributions includes the $100,000 which he has loaned to his own campaign.

A close second is the race between Gail Chang Bohr and Howard Orenstein for the open Ramsey County seat. So far, a combined $158,730 has been raised by those candidates.

At the statewide level, Minnesota Supreme Court Justices Lorie Gildea and Paul Anderson have done comparatively well individually in attracting contributions, garnering $64,070 and $58,278, respectively. Meanwhile, their opponents, Judge Deborah Hedlund and Tim Tingelstad, have collected only about $28,000 combined.

At the other end of the spectrum is Alan Eugene Link, who has challenged Hennepin County District Court Judge Philip Bush. Link -- who has declined to provide any information about his campaign to Minnesota Lawyer and other media outlets and who has not participated in any public candidate forums -- reports self-financing his $536 campaign. He reportedly spent $300 on his filing fee and $236.76 on "door hangers," which can't have gone far in the state's most populous county. To my knowledge, this stealth candidate has made no public appearances during his entire campaign. Bush has raised $16,977 to defeat the missing Link. (Some have speculated that Link is hoping that voters somehow equate his opponent's name with that of our not-so-popular president. There is, by the way, no relation.)

More information about the candidates' funding is available at the Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board website.

Minnesota Lawyer doesn’t offer endorsements of judges, so the comments below are strictly my own as someone who has closely followed these races.

Justice Paul Anderson is the second most senior justice on the high court, and was previously the chief judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals. He takes a scholarly approach to the law, and is the court’s resident historian. He has spearheaded the court’s public outreach efforts and has become its unofficial “goodwill ambassador.” Tim Tingelstad is a magistrate in the 9^th Judicial District whose campaign emphasizes his “biblical worldview,” but does not make the case that his qualifications are superior to Anderson’s. (Tingelstad has said that he would decide cases on the facts and law rather than on his religious views, although most of his website, www.highesthill.com, seems to be dedicated to the latter.) Tingelstad strikes me as a sincere individual, but has nowhere near the breadth of experience and support that Anderson has. Anderson is the clear choice here.

Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea vs. Judge Deborah Hedlund

It’s highly unusual for a sitting trial court judge to challenge a sitting Supreme Court justice, which is why this race has generated a lot of interest. Gov. Tim Pawlenty appointed Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea just about three years ago after she served a brief stint in the District Court. She has experience as a prosecutor and as an attorney in private practice. Her challenger, Deborah Hedlund, has been a Hennepin County District Court judge for 28 years. Hedlund has made as a center point of her campaign the idea of adding someone with extensive experience on the trial court bench on the Supreme Court. (Gildea, who was on the Hennepin bench for a few months, is the only justice on the seven-justice court who served as a trial judge.) Hedlund also stresses her criminal trial experience. Gildea, on the other hand, counters she has worked on the high court for three years and has “done well.” Indeed, the Minnesota Supreme Court has an excellent reputation and is fairly collegial. Gildea’s transition onto the court did not change that. While I think Hedlund makes a good point that a seasoned trial court judge could add something to the court, I don’t think she’s made the case that that person should be her or that she would make a better justice than Gildea, who is already on the court and has garnered the support of more than 115 appellate attorneys and the majority of State Bar members polled. While this is a closer call than the Anderson/ Tingelstad matchup, I think Gildea is the better choice. (I make this conclusion without regard to the recent curious e-mail dustup involving Hedlund since it is unclear what was actually going on there.)

Court of Appeals

Terri Stoneburner vs. Dan Griffith

Terri Stoneburner spent 10 years as a trial court judge before Gov. Jesse Ventura elevated her to the Court of Appeals eight years ago. She was in private practice for 10 years prior to that. I think that this is the perfect background for a seat on the Court of Appeals, which has as its primary job reviewing trial court cases to determine if an error has been made. Her opponent, Dan Griffith, who is running for a judgeship for the third time, is an attorney in private practice in International Falls. He has emphasized his belief in contested judicial elections as his reason for running rather than making the case he would make a better appellate judge than Stoneburner. I think Stoneburner is the clear choice here.

Don't forget to check out Minnesota Lawyer's online Judicial election guide to get information on the judicial races. Click here to visit.

And don't forget to vote tomorrow!

Hennepin County prosecutor Howard Orenstein is running against Children's Law Center of Minnesota executive director Gail Chang Bohr for an open seat on the Ramsey County bench. The following clip is from a debate between the two candidates at Hamline University School of Law on Oct. 29, 2008.



To view the YouTube version, click here.

Children's Law Center of Minnesota executive director Gail Chang Bohr is running against Hennepin County prosecutor Howard Orenstein for an open seat on the Ramsey County bench. The following clip is from a debate between the two candidates at Hamline University School of Law on Oct. 29, 2008.



For the YouTube version, click here.

I’ve always loved Halloween. I love to decorate my house with Halloween items, put pumpkins out on my doorstep, hang “Happy Halloween” signs on my doors and go to at least one super scary movie. As my co-workers will attest, I even like to put out Halloween stuff on at my desk at work -- usually more than a month ahead of time. My interest in this spooky “holiday” got me wondering how many times our appellate courts have considered cases that are linked in some way to Halloween.

John Dehen, who is running for District Court judge in Sherburne County against Robert Varco, is the subject of an order for protection in Carver County. According to the Minneapolis Star Tribune, Mr. Dehen allegedly got in an argument with his 15-year-old daughter, Calen Dehen, while they were in a car, and that he shoved her into the car door causing a bloody nose and a swollen lip. The protection order was sought by Mary Briol on behalf of Calen Dehen. I called Mr. Dehen and he refused to come to the phone, having the person who answered the telephone tell me he was in the process of drafting a comment for the Star Tribune and I could read it there. That was more than three hours ago, and there is nothing up on the Strib's website.

By the way, this is the second time Dehen has been the subject of an order for protection. The last one was in 1995 and went up to the Court of Appeals. The petitioner there was named Mary Vos, and the case said the parties were the parents of a 21-month-old child, C.D. In that case, the Court of Appeals said, Dehen pushed the petitioner away from a door, causing her to fall and sustain injuries. That unpublished opinion is Vos v. Dehen.

Other information about the judicial candidate is available on the Minnesota Lawyer blog and in the Oct. 10 issue of Minnesota Lawyer.

Last night, Second District judicial candidates Gail Chang Bohr and Howard Orenstein faced off in the only public forum between the two prior to Tuesday's election.

It's easy to forget sometimes that the conventional wisdom of the legal community is not always the conventional wisdom of the world in general. A case in point: Most in the legal community would acknowledge that appellate lawyers are best situated to know who is (and who is not) a good candidate for the Supreme Court and Court Appeals. Appearing before these courts on a regular basis gives you a pretty good idea of what is required. Veteran court watcher and fixture of the Minnesota appellate bar Chuck Lundberg made that point in a piece he penned for the Star Tribune to help voters at the polls in a quandary about who to vote for.

However, lawyer stereotypes can lead members of the general public to distrust any voting advice given by a lawyer, as Lundberg quickly learned from comments made when the Strib put the article on line. A second Strib opinion piece -- written by a member of the public in response to Lundberg's piece -- takes Lundberg to task for his advice to voters that incumbents are usually a good pick because most of them were vetted by a merit-selection commission prior to appointment.

Lundberg's point that the Minnesota bench overall has an excellent reputation is well-taken. Most of the judicial appointments have been very good. On the other hand, voters can and should educate themselves about particular races by looking at resources such as the Minnesota Lawyer online judicial election guide. That may be the best strategy, short of taking an appellate lawyer with you in the voting booth.

Last week we included a blog entry on a press release issued by the Thomas Haeg for Judge Committee concerning the $75,000 settlement of a discrimination and retaliation charge that had been filed against Hennepin County and Haeg's opponent, Judge James Swenson, by a former Hennepin County referee. Haeg is challenging Swenson, chief judge of the county, for his seat on the bench.

We gave the Swenson campaign an opportunity to respond last week, but they were unable to immediately do so. We received their response today, which we link to here.

Judicial elections are in the air.

Minnesota Supreme Court Justice Paul Anderson and his challenger, Tim Tingelstad, were featured this morning in an MPR news report profiling their race. Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea and Hennepin District Court Justice Deborah Hedlund will both be guests on an MPR program today at 11:00 a.m. (See post below). And Ramsey County District Court candidates Gail Chang Bohr and Howard Orenstein face off tonight at a candidates' forum at Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul (click here for info).

Meanwhile, in its online Judicial Election Guide, Minnesota Lawyer has added in links to video clips for all the candidates for whom we have video. This is the first year Minnesota Lawyer has taken video of the candidates and made it available. (We always offered to take video of both candidates in a race where we made video available, although not every candidate took us up on the offer.) We'd welcome any input as to whether the video component this year was helpful.

Minnesota Public Radio will feature a radio discussion between Minnesota Supreme Court Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea and the challenger for her seat, Hennepin County District Court Judge Deborah Hedlund, tomorrow (October 29) on "Midday With Gary Eichten." The show starts at 11:00 a.m. on 91.1 FM.

As we enter the home stretch of the judicial elections, a controversy that may influence the 2010 judicial elections is shaping up. U.S. District Court Judge Ann Montgomery heard cross-motions for summary judgment last week in the case Gregory Wersal v. Patrick Sexton, chair of the Minnesota Board of Judicial Standards, et al. Wersal challenges the portions of the code of judicial conduct that prohibit judicial candidates from endorsing other candidates and restrict solicitation of funds.

Wersal sought a preliminary injunction from Montgomery earlier this year that was denied because he did not file for office, his attorney, James Bopp of Indiania, said. Bopp said Montgomery asked many questions at the injunction hearing but very few this time around.

Wersal said last summer he would definitely run for the Supreme Court in 2010. Apparently referring to the court, he said at the time, "By then they better damn well watch themselves.”

Wersal was a co-plaintiff in Republican Party of Minnesota, et al. v. White, et al., in which the U.S. Supreme Court and 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down as free-speech violations most of Minnesota’s restrictions on judicial campaigns. The rules at issue in Wersal’s current lawsuit were not addressed in White -- although the sweeping language of White has left their vitality suspect.

It’s worth remembering that Wersal lost the first rounds in White when U.S. District Court Judge Michael Davis dismissed the case. The 8th Circuit affirmed in an 89-page decision written by Judge John R. Gibson. But the Supreme Court accepted cert, thereby permanently altering Minnesota’s judicial landscape. It’s certain that the summary judgment decision will be just a step on a long path.

The terms of four justices of the Supreme Court will be at stake in 2010—Chief Justice Eric Magnuson and Justices Christopher Dietzen, Helen Meyer and Alan Page. Wersal ran against Page in 1998.

With the judicial elections a week from tomorrow, I thought I'd check in with former Minnesota State Bar Association president David Stowman, who chairs the MSBA committee overseeing judicial campaign conduct. Stowman confirmed my sense that things have been relatively quite and the candidates for the most part have steered away from politicizing their races.

"By and large the candidates are conscientious individuals who want to conduct themselves appropriately," he said. "We've received relatively few complaints, and, in some of those cases, [the candidates] agreed to modify their behavior when we talked to them." (Citing his concern that it would be counterproductive to the committee's efforts, Stowman declined to reveal specifics about the complaints that were received.)

Stowman acknowledged that one idea he had -- getting the opposing candidates to meet over a meal -- didn't work out.

"We were not successful in getting them together in the heat of the election process while they are busy campaigning," Stowman said. However, the committee was able to talk with many of the candidates on the phone to discuss how their races are being conducted, he added.

With eight days to go until voting day, Stowman isn't quite ready to give the all-clear signal yet. "I'm still waiting for the other shoe to drop," he said with a laugh.

After the election, Stowman plans to solicit input on the role of the MSBA candidates' conduct committee and how it might be refined in future elections.

For more information about the judicial candidates, visit the Minnesota Lawyer's online judicial-election guide.

I think the future of our country is in good hands if the student body at the University of St. Catherine is any indication.

As the Star Tribune reports, a group of students at the all-female Catholic school in St. Paul is taking the administration to task for its well-meaning, but ultimately wrongheaded policy in banning otherwise interesting speakers in the name of political "neutrality." During the recent election cycle, the school's policy has led to its decision to decline visits from Senator Hilary Clinton and conservative commentator Bay Buchanan, a John McCain proponent.

The following is an excerpt from the students' petition that appears in the Strib article:

"Do we then need to invite an equal number of Socialist, Green, and Independent
party members to campus as well? And what of the anarchists? It is quite evident
that a path of 'neutrality’ is, in actuality, more difficult to negotiate than a
path of political engagement. ...

[The notion of] political neutrality is a figment of our administration's collective imagination," the petition writers add. "We believe that our administration's decision to disallow both Ms. Buchanan and Senator Clinton is embarrassing and inappropriate on the grounds that this college was rooted in stronger stuff."

Bravo to the students! Meaningful discourse is a process, not a zero-sum game where one viewpoint must be immediately negated by an opposing viewpoint. While it's laudable that the school doesn't want to offer an unfair advantage to one side or the other of the partisan divide, I think the sharp young women at St. Kate's are savvy enough to realize a speaker's political agenda without being unduly swayed by it.

Some of the students are reportedly meeting this afternoon with administration officials to discuss their concerns about the speakers' policy. I wish them well.

The race for the judicial seat held by Hennepin County District Court Chief Judge James Swenson is heating up in these final 10 days of the election season.

Swenson is facing a challenge from longtime Hennepin County referee Thomas Haeg. Yesterday, we received a press release from the folks over at Haeg’s campaign, notifying us of a Family Medical Leave Act-related disability discrimination and retaliation charge that a former Hennepin County referee filed last year against Hennepin County and Swenson. According to the Haeg campaign, the charge resulted in a “quiet” $75,000 settlement -- paid for with tax dollars, of course. (While the discrimination charge is a public document, according to Steve Shapiro, the communications consultant for the Thomas Haeg for Judge Committee, knowledge of the settlement amount came from the complainant’s attorney, Seymour Mansfield. A call to Mansfield was not immediately returned.)

I know from having practiced in the employment law area that settlement agreements in cases like this usually contain confidentiality clauses, so presumably neither side can discuss the specifics of the charge. (We attempted to get a comment from Swenson’s campaign chairs, but so far have been unable to do so. If or when we do, we’ll provide an update.) The Haeg campaign believes that the Star Tribune is working on a story, so stay tuned.

It seems to me that both Swenson and Haeg are qualified for the District Court seat and election of either would be a good result for the county. But I’m not sure I approve of the Haeg campaign's use of the discrimination charge and the resulting settlement as a last-minute tactic to turn voters against the incumbent. It seems a little desperate, and even unfair, given that Swenson is likely bound by a confidentiality agreement and can’t discuss the allegations. Moreover, people settle lawsuits for a variety of reasons -- not necessarily because they committed the acts they are accused of. Ultimately, voters will have to decide for themselves how much credence to give to the allegations -- which is really all they are at this point.

UPDATE: The Strib's article, written by Rochelle Olson, is now available, and it provides a lot more detail. Click here for some interesting reading.

Minnesota Lawyer just posted an interesting story from our upcoming issue on the justice system's efforts to deal with post traumatic stress syndrome in criminal cases involving veterans. As one source puts it in the article, combat veterans can become "addicted to chaos" and have trouble readjusting to society when they return. It doesn't seem fair to treat these cases as every other criminal cases when some of the problem is caused by their time spent in service to us in some very difficult situations.

There are no easy answers, but, as more and more combat veterans return from overseas, it's something the justice system in Minnesota (and elsewhere) will have to grapple with with increasing frequency. Fortunately, we have a forward-thinking Legislature in this regard. The following is an excerpt from the story:

Fortunately, Minnesota is ahead of the curve when it comes to making concessions for veteran offenders. With help from veterans’ advocate Guy Gambill, the state Legislature this year amended a state statute to take into account the mental health status of veterans during the sentencing phase of criminal proceedings.

Now, if a defendant in Minnesota is convicted of a crime, it’s recommended that the court ask if he or she is a veteran. If the defendant is a veteran and has been diagnosed as having a mental illness, the court may consult with the federal or state Department of Veterans Affairs to determine treatment options in lieu of or along with a jail sentence.

Veterans have done a lot for us and deserve our help when they have adjustment troubles when they return. While our laws must be enforced, I am glad in Minnesota it will be done in a way that takes into account the trauma veterans have suffered in our behalf.

Let's put aside all the partisan bickering for a moment and focus on an issue that tugs on the heartstrings of all Americans: stress toy abuse.



That's right, Westlaw just released another brilliant commercial for its legal research services. Like before, the Sally Struthers-esque spoof offers plenty of hilarious stress toy carnage. But on a happier note, Westlaw offers to adopt all those poor stress toys that have been abused by disgruntled legal researchers.

After all, shouldn't you give your stress toy a new home — a new hope?



The 2-minute must-see video is here.

Justice Paul Anderson is the second most senior of the seven Minnesota Supreme Court justices. He has served on the state high court since 1994. Previously, he was chief judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, and, prior to that, an attorney in private practice. His challenger in the upcoming election is Tim Tingelstad, a 9th Judicial District magistrate. (Unfortunately, we were unable to arrange a video interview with Tingelstad for this video series.)

A judicial history buff, Anderson brings a lot of institutional knowledge to the job. He is also extremely active in the court's outreach efforts, and has earned the informal title of the court's "goodwill ambassador."



Click here for the YouTube version.

There's an interesting article in the PiPress today involving the judicial race between Minnesota Supreme Court Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea and her challenger, Hennepin County District Court Judge Deborah Hedlund. According to the press report, the owner of a sign-making company sent Hedlund an e-mail with the subject line, "Can Muslims Be Good Americans?" The e-mail includes false claims that Barack Obama is a Muslim and that he won't salute the flag or put his hand on his heart during the national anthem. At some point the e-mail, which I have not seen, apparently goes on to talk about campaign signs.

Hedlund starts her response to the sender as follows: "We speak the same language. And I still need to let voters know they have a choice to 'Seek Justice, Vote For Experience' for the Minnesota Supreme Court." Hedlund went on to discuss the details of the campaigns signs before inadvertantly hitting the "reply to all" button. Somebody forwarded a copy of the exchange to the PiPress.

Hedlund told the PiPress that she was ignoring the first part of the e-mail and that she went right to the sign discussion. The "speaking the same language" comment referred strictly to the sign discussion, she says.

Given the context and the remarks that follow afterward, I think her explanation is possible, maybe even plausible. However, Hedlund then digs herself into another hole. Stressing how busy she has been with her campaign and judicial duties, she responds to the PiPress as follows when asked whether she thought Obama was a Muslim:

"I have no idea what he is. My level of information about the presidential candidates would not fill a thimble."

Hmmm. Coming from a candidate for a high public office, I find that statement disturbing. I mean the presidential elections are fairly important, aren't they? Can you really be an effective Supreme Court justice with a thimble-full of knowledge about the incoming president? Don't we have a civic duty to educate ourselves on the elections? In short, the response strikes me as ill-advised.

Perhaps we can chalk it all up to a case of foot-in-mouth disease (just ask Michele Bachmann). But it certainly doesn't help to have an embarrassing episode like this late in the campaign. Plus Gildea and Hedlund were both scheduled to go before the PiPress editorial board today seeking the paper's endorsement. I wonder how that went?

A sharp-eyed reader pointed out to us recently that one of our 2006 Attorneys of the Year was David E. Baer, in-house counsel for Petters Group Worldwide. “Is he in any trouble?” the reader wanted to know.

Not at the moment, but Baer did resign from the board of Petters-owned Sun Country Airlines at the same time as his boss, who accused of running a $3 billion investment fraud scheme for 13 years. Tom Petters is scheduled to appear tomorrow before Chief U.S. District Judge Michael Davis in Minneapolis in an effort to overturn an earlier ruling that Petters be held until the charges against him are resolved.

While he hasn’t been charged with anything, Baer has been cited in some news reports as Tom Petters’ right-hand man within the company, so trouble may still be on the horizon for him and other Petters executives as investigations into the company continue.

Baer, a former corporate lawyer at Leonard, Street and Deinard, was noted as an Attorney of the Year for his work in helping the company acquire Sun Country.

We just hope this isn't the start of a Sports Illustrated-like "Attorneys of the Year Curse."

Hennepin County District Court Judge Deborah Hedlund's statement on her Facebook page that her opponent, Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea, has canceled debate appearances with her six times is itself debatable, according to Gildea's campaign.

As we blogged before, Hedlund has an entry on her Facebook page asserting that Gildea is "trying to get [her] opponent to show up for a debate. [Gildea] has canceled six times now."

Gildea's campaign chair, Minneapolis attorney Sue Holden, contested Hedlund's characterization of the facts. While acknowledging Gildea was unable to participate in a League of Women Voters' debate due to scheduling conflicts, Holden said Hedlund's statement that Gildea has "canceled" numerous other appearance is incorrect.

Contacted by Minnesota Lawyer, Hedlund explained that the league's debate was rescheduled twice to accommodate Gildea, ultimately to no avail. Hedlund also said she and Gildea were slated to go before the Pioneer Press editorial board earlier this month, but Gildea had another scheduling conflict. (The two are now scheduled to go before the paper's editorial board tomorrow.) Hedlund also said a radio appearance on Minnesota Public Radio had to be rescheduled twice. (Currently the appearance is scheduled for next week.) Hedlund also pointed out that Gildea declined to appear with her on two Ramsey County cable access shows.

For her part, Gildea reported that she is extremely busy with the combination of her judicial duties and campaigning statewide during her off time. The justice said she has to pick and choose her appearances, and frequently runs into conflicts. Moreover, she noted that two of the allegedly "canceled" joint appearances -- the Pioneer Press editorial board and MPR -- are still happening, they have just been rescheduled. (Gildea and Hedlund are slated to go before the Pioneer Press tomorrow; they are scheduled to appear on MPR next week.)

Additionally, Gildea and Hedlund have a joint appearance tonight. Both have RSVP'd to be among the judicial candidates who will address attendees at the 8th District Bar Association at its meeting at Dangerfield's in Shakopee. (Eighth District Bar President Colleen Goggins King told me that the meeting will likely have double the usual number of attendees. The function room being used holds about 70 people, and a capacity crowd is expected.)

Hedlund is still hoping for a debate with Gildea (none of the scheduled joint appearances will be in debate format ). Hedlund said she is willing to appear any time and any place of Gildea's choosing.

While Gildea said she is fine with the joint appearances and even a candidates' forum, she takes issue with the idea of a "debate" used in the context of a judicial campaign. Debating "hot-button issues" is for legislative races, not judicial ones, she said.

Continuing with our video series for the appellate court races, today we bring you Court of Appeals Judge Terri Stoneburner. Stoneburner, who has served on the appellate bench for eight years, faces a challenge from International Falls attorney Dan Griffith, who has run unsuccessfully for a judgeship twice before. Stoneburner's prior experience includes 10 years as a trial court judge and 10 years in private practice in Mankato. She also worked for four years as a staff attorney for the Alaska State Commission for Human Rights.

Hearings on the 35W bridge collapse claims are underway. Minneapolis attorney Susan Holden, head of the special master panel, said that 179 claims have been filed and 70 of those will be heard by the full panel. Nine claimants have waived hearings, leaving 100 cases to be heard among the three special masters, although a few claims have already been heard, Holden said. A school bus from Waite House community center with 52 children in it was on the bridge when it went down. Yesterday, Oct. 20, the panel heard testimony from the bus driver as well as the program director and youth coordinator from Waite House. “The purpose of the testimony was to set up the testimony of the kids and understand what happened,” Holden said. “It sets the context for the medical and post-traumatic stress claims.”

The hearing at the offices of Sieben, Grose, Von Holtum & Carey also provided a preview for lawyers of claimants. Holden said about eight lawyers attended the hearings. All the hearings will be concluded by the end of January and offers must be made by Feb. 28.

Being something of a fan of the First Amendment (it's one of my favorite amendments, in fact), I was somewhat taken aback by Rep. Michele Bachmann's remark that she is concerned that Barack Obama may have "anti-American views." And, of course, her calling on the media to investigate her fellow members of Congress to determine whether they are anti- or pro-America didn't help either.

Congress itself once did the investigating of the "un-American," so some may think turnabout is fair play. But I think the vast majority of folks realize that what is and is not "un-American" (or anti-American) hinges largely on the mindset of the one tossing around the inflammatory word. Offering constructive criticisms of one's country is the hallmark of a free society, and, if you ask me, a higher form of patriotism than mouthing platitudes as it heads down the wrong path.

Bachmann has since backed off her unfortunate comments to some degree, so hopefully that's the end of it. Just in case, I am switching to American cheese on all my luncheon sandwiches, lest I be labeled anti-American. I have always been neutral toward Swiss cheese anyway. And, needless to say, I won't be having that sandwich on French bread ...

In any event, I'd expect a lot more nasty attacks and counterattacks leading up to the election. The good news is there's just two weeks to go. Then we can finally start talking about who is going to run in 2012 ...

As we continue with our video election coverage of the state appellate court races, we present Hennepin County District Court Judge Deborah Hedlund, who is challenging Judge Lorie Skjerven Gildea for her seat on the Minnesota Supreme Court. Hedlund has spent the last 28 years on the trial court bench. Prior to being a judge, Hedlund worked in the Minnetonka City Attorney's Office and as an attorney in private practice.

In the clip below, Hedlund discussed why she believes voters should pick her for the Supreme Court seat currently occupied by Gildea. (Video of Gildea appears in the post below.)



Click here for the YouTube version.

Minnesota Lawyer this week presents its video coverage of the three appellate court races. We start today with the race between Supreme Court Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea and Hennepin County District Court Judge Deborah Hedlund.

Gildea, who was appointed to the Supreme Court by Gov. Tim Pawlenty in late 2005, served briefly on the Hennepin County District Court. She has been also been a prosecutor in Hennepin County, counsel for the University of Minnesota and an attorney in private practice.

In the interview below, Gildea discusses the reasons she believes voters should retain her on the state Supreme Court.



Click here for the YouTube version.

Pity poor "Joe the Lawyer."

While both presidential candidates professed support for the Ohio man mulling buying a plumbing business, they both disowned trial lawyers to some degree.

In the case of John McCain, the subject came up in reference to a U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that a woman who discovered on the verge of retirement retired that her employer had paid her less than male counterparts was time-barred from suing for pay discrimination. McCain thinks the case was rightly decided; Barack Obama has supported congressional attempts to amend federal discrimination law to allow claims such as the woman's. In referring to the bill during the debate, McCain dismissively called it a "trial lawyer's dream."

Meanwhile, Obama, citing examples of times at which he had broken with fellow Democrats in his voting, pointed to a bill he had backed limiting some lawsuits when he first arrived in Congress. The measure "wasn't very popular with trial lawyers," he said.

But I bet Joe the Plumber loved it.

A lot has been written about the use of social-networking sites by lawyers. Now it has even permeated into the arena of judicial elections.

Both Minnesota Supreme Court Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea (right) and her opponent in the upcoming election, Hennepin County District Court Judge Deborah Hedlund (left), have entries on the Facebook networking site for their campaigns. In fact, Hedlund has two.

One Hedlund Facebook entry-- entitled, "Deborah Hedlund for Supreme Court" -- boasts 12 members, and includes some biographical information and a photo. The second Hedlund Facebook entry, which also has a photo, has a prominent message at the top stating: "Deborah Hedlund is trying to get my opponent to show up for a debate. She has canceled six times now."

Hedlund also has put a series of campaign videos on YouTube.

Meanwhile, 53 supporters have publicly stated that they are backing Gildea on her Facebook page, which includes a "fan photo" of one supporter wearing a Gildea T-shirt while eating something or other on a stick at the State Fair. A couple of statements of support came from folks with the last name Skjerven, including on from a Josh Skjerven, who exclaimed, "im with her." In addition to the standard headshot, the Facebook entry for Gildea's campaign also includes pictures of Gildea being hugged by the University of Minnesota Mascot (Goldy Gopher), riding on a horse in western garb and marching in a parade in Thief River Falls.

While campaigns run in the virtual world are all well and good, I would like to see a real-world debate between Gildea and Hedlund. They have one of the more engaging races, and I think it might generate some public interest in judicial elections.

Does someone in Anoka County have a magic revenue-generating machine in their basement? Recipients of county services had better hope so.

The county board voted yesterday to hire a pair of private law firms to handle the 170 new Child in Need of Protection (CHIPS) petitions and up to 70 new termination of parental rights hearings that come before Anoka County courts each year.

The Anoka law firm of Randall and Goodrich will be paid $5,000 a month and attorney David Cossi will earn $4,500 a month as the second primary lawyer on those cases.

The board estimated that processing all the county’s CHIPS cases will cost between $160,000 to $180,000, none of which had been set aside in the county’s budget. It remains to be seen which county programs and services will have to be scaled back to pick up the slack.

Facing a multimillion shortfall, the State Board of Public Defense decided in June that counties should pay for lawyers for poor adults who are losing parental rights or are otherwise involved in cases in which children need help.

Tough break for Anoka County. But hey, at least there haven’t been any new state taxes during the current gubernatorial administration. That's the important thing, right?

Tomorrow, Oct. 15, is the deadline for survivors of the I-35W bridge collapse to file claims with the State of Minnesota.

The state has established a $37 million fund to compensate survivors of the August 1, 2007 bridge collapse. The law established a special master panel to consider claims, make settlement offers and enter settlement agreements with survivors. The Special Master Panel of Chair Susan Holden, Steven Kirsch and Michael Tewksbury was appointed by Minnesota Supreme Court Chief Justice Russell Anderson on May 29.

The law authorizing this compensation process defines an eligible survivor as “a natural person who was present on the I-35W bridge at the time of the collapse.” A survivor also includes family members who survive a person who perished in the collapse or the legally recognized representative of a survivor, such as the parent or legal guardian of a survivor who is under 18 years of age, or a court appointed trustee authorized to bring a claim under Minnesota’s Wrongful Death Act, Minn. Stat. sec. 573.02.

The claim application forms required to submit a claim in this special compensation process are available, together with instructions, online at the website administered by the panel of Special Masters: www.BridgeCollapseClaims.com. If you are not able to access the claim forms on this website, you may contact us or call the Office of the Special Master Panel at (651) 485-1153.

The American Association for Justice is upset over a rule issued this week that it says will diminish consumers’ legal right to hold vehicle manufacturers accountable through the civil justice system.

According to the AAJ, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s final rule on designated seating positions includes specific language that would pre-empt state tort law claims related to seatbelt positions. The language essentially prohibits consumers from legally claiming they were unable to wear a seatbelt because of lack of sufficient number of seatbelts or the seatbelt’s location in the vehicle.

The AAJ says that the “designated seating position” rule had two main objectives: (1) to revise the definition of “designated seating position” to determine the number of seat belts that are required in a particular vehicle; and (2) to eliminate the exclusion of auxiliary seats from the definition so that all seating locations intended to be used while a vehicle is in motion would provide the appropriate levels of crash protection.

But the final rule issued Wednesday specifically includes the pre-emption language, in addition to the preamble, where NHTSA has included pre-emption language in past rules.

Before when the language was only in the preamble, the agency was giving an advisory opinion,” AAJ president Les Weisbrod said in a press release. “Clearly the agency wanted to give the manufacturers a free pass on seatbelt safety.”

Last Monday, in a chart accompanying a story on the appellate court races, Minnesota Lawyer reported the amounts of the contributions to the appellate court candidates in the upcoming election. There was an error in the information listed for Court of Appeals Judge Terri Stoneburner, who faces a challenge from International Falls attorney Dan Griffith. The chart erroneously showed that Stoneburner has raised $25,066. As of Oct. 8, Stoneburner's campaign had, in fact, raised only $8,700. The figure reported for Griffith, $2,275 is correct.

So far, Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea, who has reported contributions of about $35,000, is in the lead for fundraising in the appellate races.

Today is dedicated to that famous Norse explorer who made landfall some 1,000 years ago in what is now known as Newfoundland.

I'm not sure how you celebrate such an event, but I plan on brushing up on my history at NOVA's excellent website, "The Vikings."