Law Clerk Conflict of Interest Disclosure Obligations

ChatGPT (AI) Analysis

Law clerk James Morrison’s ethical obligations concerning disclosure of his prior clerkship with Judge Mark Hansen (father of defense attorney Kirsten Hansen) arise from both judicial ethics principles and general duties imposed on judicial employees, even though law clerks are not subject to the same public oversight as judges. While Morrison may not be directly governed by the Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct (which applies to judges), he is subject to internal court policies and professional norms that recognize the critical importance of impartiality and the appearance of fairness in judicial proceedings.

1. Did James Morrison have an independent duty to disclose his relationship with Judge Hansen?

Yes — Morrison had an independent ethical duty to disclose his prior relationship with Judge Mark Hansen, especially since Hansen’s daughter, Kirsten Hansen, was actively representing parties before the judge Morrison was clerking for (Judge Kevin Miller). The duty stems from:

• His role as an extension of the judge’s decision-making authority

• His obligation to maintain both actual and apparent impartiality

• Minnesota judicial employee policies

• General common-law principles of disqualification and recusal support staff ethics

Even if Judge Miller was ultimately responsible for disclosing conflicts, Morrison bore an affirmative duty to bring the conflict to the judge’s attention, so that the court could assess whether recusal or disclosure to the parties was appropriate.

2. When did this duty apply?

The duty applied at multiple points:

This was an ongoing duty, not a one-time obligation.

3. What rules or guidance applied to Clerk Morrison?

While Morrison was not a judge, he was bound by several overlapping standards:

A. Internal Minnesota Judicial Branch Policies

The Minnesota Judicial Branch’s Employee Handbook, Ethical Principles for Judicial Employees, and potentially local chambers policies govern conduct. These typically include:

• Canon-like principles adapted for non-judicial staff

• Requirements to avoid conflicts of interest

• Obligations to promptly disclose potential conflicts to the judge

B. Model Code of Conduct for Judicial Employees (U.S. Courts) — persuasive authority

Although not binding in Minnesota, many state courts—including Minnesota—borrow standards from the Model Code of Conduct for Judicial Employees, which includes:

• Canon 3(C)(2): “A judicial employee should disclose to the appointing authority any relationships or circumstances that might give rise to a conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict.”

• Canon 1: “A judicial employee should uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary and of the judicial employee’s office.”

• Canon 2: “A judicial employee should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities.”

C. Common Law and Case Law Principles

Judicial decisions and ethical treatises support the notion that law clerks must avoid situations that create even the appearance of bias, particularly where there are familial or professional entanglements that would disqualify a judge under Rule 2.11 of the Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct.

Even if the judge is not disqualified per se, the reasonable appearance of bias may be sufficient to require disclosure and potential reassignment of the clerk from that case.

Conclusion

Yes, James Morrison had an independent, affirmative duty to disclose his prior clerkship for Judge Mark Hansen, due to the close family tie between Hansen and attorney Kirsten Hansen, who was actively litigating before Judge Miller. His duty applied:

• At the outset of his clerkship,

• When he became aware that Kirsten Hansen was appearing before his current judge,

• And on a continuing basis for any proceeding involving her.

He was bound by internal court ethical policies, persuasive national standards, and general conflict of interest principles that prioritize the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.