Minnesota Lawyer Blog

I was a bit amused and then intrigued by some comments made by former Attorney General Mike Hatch posted yesterday on MinnPost. The Hatch comments were in response to a request for an interview from MinnPost's Eric Black, who was writing a piece on Hatch's role in the current managerial situation at the AG's Office. (Actually, it's the first part of a two-part series. UPDATE: Click here for part 2.)

Hatch, who now is in private practice in Minneapolis, had apparently scheduled an interview with Black, but then backed out at the last minute. Rather than just giving the typical Marsha Brady excuse (i.e. "Something suddenly came up"), Hatch sent a rather lengthy explanation as to why he was cancelling and not commenting, during the course of which he did, in fact, comment.

Here is part of what Hatch sent to MinnPost: "I had misinterpreted my secretary's message, and thought that you were with the Rochester Post. ... [I]t is my policy not to interview with bloggers. While I should stop right here, I feel chagrined in having agreed to a telephone interview with the Rochester Post, finding out that in fact you represent a blog called the Minnesota Post [sic], and having raised your expectations of an interview. ..."

First of all, I am not sure MinnPost is really a "blog" per se. The folks over at MinnPost may or may not agree with me, but I would say it's more of an online news service covering public affairs. These days, with people making comments on posted articles that may or may nor have previously appeared in print, it gets harder and harder to draw such distinctions. MinnPost is most definitely part of the electronic media -- a vastly growing segment of the news business. The migration of news online has hit daily general- circulation newspapers hard. Papers like the Star Tribune and Pioneer Press have shed some of their top journalists, who, in turn, have gone on to become part of the online media. Thus, in closing himself off to "bloggers," Hatch is losing access to some of the best and brightest in the business. Plus, many people born after 1980 will likely never get to see his pearls of wisdom if he confines himself solely to print. (Although most newspapers have a web presence themselves these days, so the dividing line gets kind of blurry.)

This is not the first time Hatch has professed a resistance to technology. Some may recall a little more than a year ago, while he was the director of complex litigation at the AG's office, he proclaimed that he didn't even have an e-mail address. (Ironically, that comment came as a rebuttal to allegations that Hatch had forced staffers to post positive things about the AG's Office on this blog). While I find it a bit difficult to believe that such a politicically well-informed man would have no idea what MinnPost is, I would suggest he acquaint himself with it and other online media.

As both a blogger and the editor of a brick-and-mortar (or at least paper-and-ink) newspaper, I don't really have a dog in this hunt. (Minnesota Lawyer has both a blog and a website, which makes us what the guys on Wall Street like to call a "multimedia" operation.) A part of me likes the idea of sources only talking to print publications because that's still the bread-and-butter of the news industry -- at least until someone figures out how to make online news pay. But realistically, I don't think it works to limit yourself to print in 2008.

They used to say that you shouldn't pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel. These days, I would make the following addendum: "You also shouldn't pick a fight with someone who gets a lot of unique visits to his or her site." Not as catchy, perhaps, but an accurate reflection of changes in the industry.

If this blog had a "Profiles in Courage" award, I would without hesitation bestow it upon Rep. Steve Simon, DFL- St. Louis Park.

Simon's name has unfairly been dragged through the mud as of late as a direct result of his having the temerity to break ranks with his party and be the lone DFLer on the Legislative Audit Committee to call for a probe into what is going on in the Attorney General's Office. (Click here for details about the fallout from a recent e-mail sent to a number of DFL lawmakers implying that Simon's real motivation for calling for the investigation was a departmental transfer he received while he worked at the AG's Office.)

As has been recorded here in a numerous posts, the AG's Office has been rocked by more than a year of virtually nonstop staffing turmoil, including unusually high turnover and the alleged use of anti-union tactics. Three staff members publicly stepped forward with some of their concerns in a letter earlier this year. One of them has since been indefinitely suspended after making statements on the radio and in the blogosphere calling into question how AG Lori Swanson is running the office. The allegations include assertions of ethical and legal violations. And yet we are supposed to believe that the one DFL lawmaker brave enough to step forward and ask for a probe to look into these matters could only be doing so because he has an ax to grind?

MinnPost's G.R. Anderson, who attended the legislative hearing at which Simon took his bold stand, reported that the DFL lawmaker then explained his decision to call for a probe as follows: "The attorney general is the people's lawyer. I don't care if you're a Republican or a Democrat. It ought not to matter." Wise words indeed. (And let's not forget that that the auditor's investigation may actually clear Swanson of any legal or ethical violations.)

If, as the e-mail purports, Mike Hatch is in fact the spinmeister impugning Representative Simon's integrity, history provides a simple, yet elegant response to Mr. Hatch's political chicanery: "Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"

I just attended an interesting CLE program sponsored by the Hennepin County Bar Association entitled: "What to do when the Attorney General comes calling" (or "comes a' knockin," as I like to say.)

The panelist were two ex-AGs -- Mike Hatch (left) and Warren Spannaus. The lunchtime panel was fairly well attended; many of those there were in-house lawyers curious if they could pick up any tips as to what they could do to keep AG Lori Swanson from kicking in the door to their company. Hatch handed out a nice sum-up packet on the letterhead of his new firm, Blackwell Burke.

Hatch's advice included the following tips on how NOT to respond to the AG's Office:
-- Don't go in and talk about politics;
-- Don't engage in threats or personal attacks;
-- Don't be condescending;
-- Avoid histrionics and "righteous indignation"; and
-- Never be the tallest nail on the board -- in fact, scrunch down if you can.

Illustrating the last point, Hatch offered the following example in his materials:

"A lawyer took it upon himself to get in my face after a Congressional Hearing in which I testified on an issue, although I didn't name his company. After his outburst, I asked [the lawyer] which company he represented. Guess what company in that particular industry got sued?"

It's confirmed: Mike Hatch is now with the Minneapolis law firm of Blackwell Burke. Minnesota Lawyer Associate Editor Barbara Jones called over there today and left a message for Hatch on his voicemail at the firm.

It will be interesting to see whether the former AG with a penchant for consumer-rights advocacy work maintains that focus or goes corporate. As we mentioned in the post below, Blackwell Burke's current client list includes Aetna, Coca-Cola, General Mills, Medtronic, Northwest Airlines and 3M.

The simmering drama at the state attorney general's office reached a climax of sorts yesterday with the abrupt resignation of former attorney general Mike Hatch, but by no means did the saga reach its conclusion. In fact, Hatch's departure probably raised more questions than it answered:

-- Where will Hatch land? Given his reputation as a volatile personality, will a private firm be reluctant to take a chance on him? Or will his obvious legal skills overcome reservations about his demeanor?

-- What will Hatch's role be as the AGO moves forward? His status as a mentor to Lori Swanson is well known. Will he try -- and will he be allowed -- to pull strings behind the scenes?

-- What will change in the AG's office? According to some insiders, Lori Swanson, not Hatch, was the one spending 14-hour days vetting every bit of correspondence that went out of Bremer Tower. Will the new situation allow her to focus on the job she was actually elected to do?

-- With Hatch out and the AGO struggling to replace staff, will recent defectors be welcomed back? Will they want to come back?

-- How will this shake-up affect the office's credibility, if at all? Will the administrative dysfunction that's come to light affect the AGO's ability to effectively pursue important cases?

-- What of the two weeks' notice given by Hatch? Was he strictly following procedure, or will he see this as an opportunity to settle lingering scores before leaving?

-- What's to become of Swanson's political career? A man who nearly became governor was willing to fall on his sword for her. Is that a tribute to how she's being groomed for bigger things?

-- How will the Swanson-AFSCME drama play out? It was the pretext for the public airing of the AGO story to start with, and now it seems to have been placed on the back burner. Will the unionizing efforts in the office pan out, and will Swanson and local AFCSME leader Elliot Seide make peace?

As the AGO story disappears from mainstream news sources, it's easy to see these lingering questions as so much inside-baseball speculation that only law geeks would care about. But in fact, how it plays out from here might be the most important stage in the whole tale.

What do you think will happen?

It would have been a much more dignified end for Mike Hatch's career as Attorney General if he had turned in his office keys four months ago like he was supposed to. And the man is in many ways a walking HR problem with anger-management issues, there is no denying that. However, properly channeled, some of his worst qualities -- his aggressiveness, his single-minded determination, his anger and indignation -- could also be some of his best qualities.

He did do the consumers of this state some service. I wouldn't want that forgotten because of his tardy exit from the AG's Office. When he was taking his hammer to unscrupulous lenders he was fine, but when he took it to his employees, he was out of line. I have heard Mr. Hatch compared to a bull dog, and that is an apt analogy. As AG, he was happiest when he was out chasing insurers or health-care providers on behalf of consumers. But when he was locked in the office, he would start to tear up the furniture. Eventually enough was enough, and it was time for him to go out.

I wish Mr. Hatch the best of luck in the private sector. I have no doubt that there is a job out there where he can put his energy and aggressiveness to good use. Meanwhile, I would call on AG Lori Swanson to make her office a place where the staff enjoys coming to work and serving the citizens of this state. They are dedicated public servants and deserve that.

Former Attorney General Mike Hatch today resigned his post as director of complex litigation at the Attorney General's Office.

In a letter to AG Lori Swanson, Hatch said: "Because of my presence in your administration, it is apparent that changes I made during my administration are unfairly attributed to you. It is not appropriate you should become targets of complaints involving my administration. I hope that with this resignation the public will continue to focus on the good deeds you are undertaking on behalf of ordinary citizens.'' For more, click here. (Star Tribune)

The Pioneer Press has the full text of Hatch's resignation letter. Hatch is apparently giving two weeks notice, which strikes me as a bit odd given the situation.

In any case, I applaud Hatch's decision, which will allow Swanson to work on straightening out the longstanding management issues at the office and get back to serving the people of this state, which I believe she is capable of doing well.

The Pioneer Press's Rubén Rosario, who has been closely following the events at the Attorney General's Office, wrote a piece calling for Mike Hatch's removal. While commending Hatch for his service to the state, he said it's time for the ex-AG to move on.

Formatting the piece as a letter to Lori Swanson, Rosario says: "Your decision to bring Hatch back into the office, according to nearly a dozen current and former staffers, is the main reason why your office's public image, if not effectiveness, is sinking."

Rosario concludes his piece: "You mention Hatch can land a gig at a prominent law firm for substantially more money. Now's the time for Hatch to find that out. It's time to step up. Don't be like Mike. Just do it."

For the full article, see "One more employee at AG office needs to go" in today's Pioneer Press.

Something clicked when I saw Attorney General Lori Swanson's comment in the press that the departures and the way they were being handled was just a normal transition. And then I realized what it was: Swanson has only been part of one other transition of power at the AG's Office before -- when Hatch took over in 1999.

I recall that transition well. I became editor of Minnesota Lawyer right about the time that Hatch was elected to his first term as AG. Skip Humphrey had vacated the AG's Office to pursue a gubernatorial bid, and Hatch, a fellow DFLer, was elected to replace him. Everyone initially thought the transition would not be too bad because both Humphrey and Hatch were from the same party. What followed was a bloodletting on an unprecedented scale. Somewhere around 100 people lost their jobs.

Of course, Humphrey had been there a very long time, so one could argue that change and reshaping an office can be a positive thing to revitalize an organization (although 100 people in an office that size strikes me as excessive.) But what really bothered me was the way these firings were handled. The callousness and lack of empathy for how these people would feel being thrown out on the street after years of service in such an abusive fashion.

When Dan Heilman, the Minnesota Lawyer reporter covering this story, came to me about a month ago with the ruminations he had heard about the situation at the AG's Office, the only part of the story that I found shocking was the allegations from sources that Hatch and Swanson were engaged in union busting. Allegations that a former DFL candidate for governor and a DFL attorney general were taking a sledgehammer to a union? You've got to be joking, I thought. (Of course it has yet to be shown how much merit those accusations have, but the union is certainly having a labor-related disagreement with the AG’s Office. I am still hopeful that Swanson was not directly involved if strong-arm tactics were used.) But, while the union angle was a complete surprise to me, the brutality of the transition was par for the course when Hatch is involved.

We have been able to use the new blog technology to facilitate the reporting of this story. It’s a hard to stifle such a story now. However, it is quite telling if, in fact, Hatch did resort to trying to corrupt the blogging process by doing the electronic version of stuffing the ballot box. Such machine-style tactics have no place in the real world today -- and certainly no place in the virtual world. Hatch may be the first former attorney general in the state’s history guilty of forcing others into involuntary bloggitude.

In any event, I am going to post below an extremely large excerpt from the story Minnesota Lawyer published in June 1999 on the effect on the staff of Hatch taking over the AG’s office. I think you will find the story eerily similar to what is going on now. In fact, you could change a couple of names and run this 1999 story as a news piece on the current happenings at the AG’s Office. I apologize in advance for the length of the post.

From the archives of Minnesota Lawyer, June 28, 1999, six months into Mike Hatch's first term as attorney general of Minnesota.


AG’s handling of staff reductions questioned

Some decry ‘climate of fear,’ but AG's spokesperson says transition pains are normal

By Brian Becker / Minnesota Lawyer
June 28, 1999

While some personnel changes were expected when Mike Hatch was elected Minnesota’s first new attorney general in 16 years, a number of current and former staffers are unhappy with the spate of firings and resignations that have marked the first six months of his tenure.

Since January, nearly 100 attorneys, investigators and support staff have been fired, resigned or otherwise left the office.

Observers say they cannot remember a time when so many staff members have been forced out. One employee said morale in the office is “pretty low and getting lower.” Another said that a “climate of fear” currently pervades the office.

Several former assistant AG’s told Minnesota Lawyer that their terminations were “abrupt,” “curt,” and came with little or no explanation.

One former staff attorney remarked that she still doesn’t understand why she was let go. “All I know is that I got phone call one day and was told to go up to [the Attorney General’s Office at the Capitol] where I was informed I no longer had a job. I had to give them my keys right then. I was told I could not return to the office and that if I had any personal items in the office I would have to pick them up later, after hours, with an escort. "

Hatch and Chief Deputy AG John Stanoch were unavailable for comment, but office spokesperson Leslie Sandberg described the departures as part of an overall “reorganization plan.” She said that while some people have been fired, many of the individuals who left did so voluntarily.

“Some people have seen this as an opportunity for a change,” she noted, “this is public life and people don’t stay here forever.”

Sandberg nevertheless acknowledged that the recent months have been a “difficult period.”

“Our hearts go out to those people [who were fired],” she said, “but we tried to deal with the situation and the reorganization in the most respectful way possible.”

The AG’s office currently employs approximately 220 attorneys and has a total workforce of about 500.

No explanation
During his campaign, Hatch promised he would downsize the AG’s office by eliminating a number of upper-level policymaking positions.

When Hatch first took office, the ax fell immediately on four assistant AGs who worked on the state’s tobacco settlement. (A fifth assistant AG who worked on the settlement left on his own.)
However, Hatch’s cuts have reached much deeper than some expected, affecting a wide range of departments, including criminal, tax, health and education.

What seemed to upset former staffers who talked with Minnesota Lawyer most was that they felt that they were not given an adequate explanations for their terminations. For example, when one former AG asked why she was being fired, she said she was told simply – “shifting priorities.”

“I asked them several times what they meant,” she observed, “but they never gave me any kind of concrete answer.”

Sandberg declined to offer any specifics on how the termination decisions were made. She said questions about why some people were fired and others were not were “inappropriate.” Sandberg was unable to say whether more firings are planned in the near future.

Several former assistant AGs remarked they believe that the current winnowing process has a larger political purpose for Hatch. They speculated that Hatch is planning to run for governor and that one of the planks in his platform will be that he reduced the size of government.

“[Hatch] already says that he cut the size of the Commerce Department and saved taxpayers a half million bucks,” said one former assistant AG, “whether that’s true or not I don’t know. But I do know that firing of some truly talented lawyers [at the AG’s Office] with impeccable credentials and years of experience is not going to make the office more effective.

Other observers asserted that at lest some of the departures came as a result of Hatch’s difficulty in dealing with the “independent thinkers” or people with differing opinions. Several sources recounted a meeting in which an attorney disagreed with Hatch’s assessment of a particular case and was later fired.

“All [this attorney] did was represent the client-agency’s point of view. … That firing sent a chill throughout the office,” said one former staffer.

“I think he’s micromanaging the office,” stated another ex-assistant AG. “He’s apparently decided that he, and not the agency-clients, is going to be making policy decisions about pending cases. And anybody who might not be willing to do his bidding will be forced out. This certainly isn’t how things were done under Humphrey.”

Office morale
Whatever Hatch’s reasons, several current and former AG employees said that the firings have had a palpable effect on office morale.

Staffers are afraid because they “are not sure what is going to happen,” said one source.

“I think he has deliberately created an environment where people feel as if they could be fired at any moment,” said another. “And I think that is a terrible way to manage an office,” he added.

Sandberg said that she understands that some people may be upset and that “no one is ever happy when things like this occur,” but noted that changes in personnel are bound to happen with a change in administration.

Approximately half of the vacancies have been filled, Sandberg said. Forty-eight positions will be eliminated.

“Personally I think that you are going to see the office get smaller as time goes by,” said one attorney earlier in the year. “I think his real agenda here is political and what does that say about his priorities. He is supposed to be concerned about the citizens of this state, but he may be more concerned with appearances.” ...

From today's Pioneer Press:

In interviews, several former top lawyers from the office linked the wave of departures to Swanson's decision to put former Attorney General Mike Hatch back on the office payroll.

At least nine current and former assistant attorneys general have told the Pioneer Press that the stream of departures and dismissals since January is indelibly linked to Swanson's decision to return Hatch to the office. Former employees accuse Hatch, who now works out of Swanson's old 14th-floor office in downtown St. Paul, of exerting too much control.

Hatch's red-hot temper is the stuff of office lore. [Bob Stanich, a former high level attorney at the AG's office who left in 2002] described being called into Hatch's office one day when Hatch complained of spotting an assistant attorney general reading a newspaper in the library during a lunch break.

"He called the man lazy and then went off on a couple of other things," Stanich said. "He was beet red in the face and pounding on the desk. I frankly was frightened. I had never seen anything like that." ...

For the full article, click here.

Hmmm. Hope it was not Minnesota Lawyer he was reading.

In any case, check back to this blog later if you have the chance. I am going to see if I can retrieve some info that would make for an interesting post.

Putting aside for a moment press reports that some of the favorable postings on this site may have been made under pressure, I count a total of 16 posts on our site so far that could be called positive toward the AG’s Office. All of those posts say something positive about Lori Swanson. However, just two say something positive about Mike Hatch.

The two arguably favorable comments say:

-- “In my almost 9 years in the Office I have always been treated fairly, respectfully and professionally. I am impressed by the work ethic and dedication of both former Attorney General Mike Hatch and Lori Swanson”;
-- “Mike Hatch works about fifty feet from my office. It looks to me like he is damn busy working on cases.”

I am trying to determine if the general lack of comment on Hatch in these otherwise positive posts about the AG's Office is an oversight or a damning with faint praise. Anyone else have anything positive to say about what value Hatch brings to the AG's Office in his current role? The Strib reports that he makes $107,000 a year for his job as director of complex litigation. Is he worth it? And what exactly does he do?

The Pioneer Press has an excellent story about the situation at the AG's office that even gives our blog a mention. Here is the reference to our blog:

.... Speculation and concern in recent weeks about the escalator out of the attorney general's office led Mark Cohen, editor in chief of the weekly Minnesota Lawyer, to comment on the matter in a blog Saturday. More than 40 commenters rapidly piled on before Cohen ended the string Thursday morning, saying it was becoming unproductive.

Among the comments were several laudatory posts praising Swanson and signed by staff members. One former employee accused Hatch of pressuring staff to post positive comments on the blog, in one case even writing a comment for the staffer.

Hatch denied doing so. "I haven't written any blogs," he said. "In fact, I don't even have an e-mail address." ... (For the full story, see State attorney general's office in shake-up.)

Wow. Those posts coming out of the AG's Office did look orchestrated, but sinking so low as to actually write a comment for a staffer? To pressure others to blog? This from a man who was a few votes shy of being elected the governor of this state?

If any of this is true, I offer my condolences to all the affected individuals . That was not what this blog was supposed to be about, and that type of abuse would be insupportable. I would be happy to offer my cooperation with any sort of investigation. Unbelievable.

In any event, now that the purpose of our blog entry on the AG's Office is out of the bag, I have published below the full story behind our use of this blog to help bring this story to light.

Since our blog is new, I thought I would provide you with a little of the back story on our post asking for comments on the two deputies leaving at Attorney General Lori Swanson's office.

Around the start of April or so, the Minnesota Lawyer staff began hearing ruminations about potential morale issues at both the U.S. Attorney's Office and the Attorney General's Office. We started looking into both of these potential stories, but U.S. Attorney Rachel Paulose's three deputies stepped down from their leadership positions before we were able to do anything about those reports -- and a blitz of media coverage on that story ensued.

We heard rumors of a unionization attempt, a large number of departures and personnel-related issues at the AG's Office. However, no one in the office would step forward. The only information we could get on the AG's staff issues was not anything even near being on the record. Minnesota Lawyer staff reporter Dan Heilman spearheaded the investigation, trying to quietly get confirmation of the story and substantiate the facts through various sources. However, he kept running into a wall. Although we knew it would be a tip off to the AG's Office that he was working on something, Dan ultimately decided to make a Data Practices Act request to get information on all the staff departures that had occurred since Swanson became AG. That request is still pending.

Meanwhile, with the launch of our blog, I decided to try to grease the wheels a bit by putting up a post that might encourage some folks to come forward if they had verifiable information about the issues at the AG's Office. For the same reason we could not run the story in Minnesota Lawyer, I did not want to put any of the unverified rumors that we heard into our post. I felt this would be irresponsible reporting. Instead, I devised a post using the one verified fact that we had -- i.e. that Swanson's two deputies had left.

In the post ("A Double Standard?"), I queried why "nary a word" had been said in the general media about Swanson's deputies departing while Paulose was the subject of a barrage of coverage. Adding controversy into the mix, I asked if their differing political persuasions might have had a role in the disparate coverage. (Swanson is a DFLer; Paulose is a Republican.) I figured we would get four or five posts out of it, but that one might be a strong enough lead to verify the story for our newspaper.

But the conservative blogs such as Power Line and Minnesota Democrats Exposed loved the angle of the media pursuing a Republican U.S. attorney over a managerial situation, but not evidencing any interest in a possible managerial situation at the office of an AG who happened to be a DFLer. The conservative blogs gave the post prominent play and out it went all over the blogosphere. Meanwhile, CJ at the Star Tribune became aware of the posting and gave me a call. CJ ran a little item in her column about the post. I mentioned in CJ's column that we wanted comments about the transition at the AG's Office. (Kudos to CJ for being the only person in the general media to pick up on this! A move over to news, perhaps?)

Once it became known through these various sources we were looking for information on our blog, we got a slew of anonymous comments. Several were addressed at me accusing me of having a political agenda (presumably conservative) and of trying to do a hatchet job on Swanson. Then many more anonymous comments repeating some of the rumors that we had already heard about the AG's Office, but giving us no more information than we already had. None of the comments gave us verifiable information.

Suddenly we started getting a bunch of posts from assistant AGs affirming their support of Swanson. It looked like some of these posts were being orchestrated. We wondered why anyone would bother orchestrating a campaign for a simple blog debate. The posts were coming in fast and furious at a rate I never would have anticipated. However, they began getting repetitive and were providing no useful information. Once we passed 40 or so on Thursday morning, we closed the post to further comments.

A few hours later during a routine press conference on another matter, Swanson suddenly found herself fielding unrelated questions from reporters about some of the very concerns that had been raised by posters on this blog. It was then that she confirmed that at least 25 employees had left her office since January. The fact that employees at the AG's Office are trying to unionize also was confirmed. (Follow-up reports are confirming a major morale issue exists in the office.) The Pioneer Press reporter who contacted me was kind enough to let me know that our blog was all the buzz at the press conference.

We are happy for what assistance we offered in bringing this to light so that the situation can be properly addressed. The entire Minnesota Lawyer editorial staff had a hand and input into this unique collaboration between print and electronic journalism, so kudos to Dan, associate editors Barbara Jones and Michelle Lore and Special Sections editor Michael Krieger.

Thanks to all the posters on this blog. We are sorry that we could only give you limited information about why we were seeking your input, but it would not have been responsible journalism for us to have reported unsubstantiated rumors on such important issues.

In any event, we look forward to continuing to serve you with this blog and our regular print publication, Minnesota Lawyer, in the future. We hope you make this -- our new blog -- a regular destination.