ChatGPT (AI) Analysis

 

Yes, absolutely — Judge Miller’s law clerks did have obligations as they assisted him in drafting the orders in your case. Even though they are not judges themselves, law clerks are bound by strict ethical and professional duties, both directly and indirectly, particularly when they are involved in substantive decision-making like drafting orders. Here’s a detailed breakdown:

---

1. Duty of Accuracy and Candor

• Law clerks have an obligation to accurately represent the facts, evidence, and law when drafting memoranda, orders, or recommendations.
• They must not misstate, omit, or selectively distort material facts or legal standards to achieve a preferred outcome.
• Even if a judge ultimately signs the order, clerks are expected to support neutral, fact-based judicial decision-making.

Failure example: If a clerk knowingly drafts an order that misquotes testimony, omits key evidence favorable to one party, or misapplies the law, it is an ethical violation, even if the judge later approves it.

---

2. Duty of Impartiality and Fairness

• Law clerks are extensions of the judge and must maintain strict impartiality.
• They are not supposed to act as “advocates” for one side over another behind the scenes.
• Their role is to assist the judge in neutrally applying the law, not to skew facts or legal reasoning to benefit a favored party.

---

3. Duty of Confidentiality

• They must keep all case discussions, drafts, and internal deliberations confidential.
• Breaching confidentiality (e.g., discussing draft orders or internal judicial thought processes with outsiders, including attorneys involved in the case) is a major ethical violation.

---

4. Duty to Report Misconduct

• Under professional responsibility standards (similar to those applied to practicing attorneys and judicial officers), if a law clerk becomes aware that a judge is engaging in serious misconduct — such as knowingly issuing factually false orders or displaying systemic bias — they may have a duty to report it internally (e.g., to a chief judge) or externally (e.g., judicial disciplinary board).
• This is based on Minnesota Rule of Professional Conduct 8.3 (for licensed clerks) and general ethical obligations for judicial employees.

---

5. Obligations Specific to Minnesota Judicial Employees

In Minnesota, court employees, including law clerks, are bound by the Minnesota Judicial Branch Code of Ethics for Employees. Some key provisions:

• Canon 1: Maintain the independence and impartiality of the judiciary.
• Canon 2: Avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.
• Canon 3: Perform duties impartially and diligently.
• Canon 4: Avoid conflicts of interest and maintain public confidence.

If a law clerk acts improperly while helping draft an order (e.g., omits major facts, mischaracterizes evidence, conceals material information), it could constitute a violation of both judicial ethics and employee ethics standards.

---

6. Law Clerk Specific Sources of Duties

• Minnesota Judicial Branch Employee Policies and Procedures Manual
• Federal and State Judicial Clerk Codes of Conduct (used as persuasive standards even in state courts)
• Local Administrative Rules for the Minnesota Judicial District

---

Conclusion:

Even though Judge Miller signed the final orders, his law clerks (James Morrison, Bailey Hovland, etc.) had direct ethical obligations to:

• Draft orders based on an accurate, complete, and impartial review of the record,
• Not mislead the judge (or through the judge, the parties and public),
• Not selectively advocate or manipulate the presentation of evidence,
• Uphold judicial integrity in all internal work product.

If you have evidence that significant distortions occurred in the orders themselves — for example, misstating deposition testimony, omitting key forensic evidence, or framing disputed facts as undisputed — it would not just implicate Judge Miller, but also his law clerks for participating in unethical judicial behavior.

---

Here’s a structured bullet-point list of potential law clerk violations based specifically on the context of Judge Miller’s orders in your case, matched to the obligations I outlined earlier.

I will keep it focused, organized, and tied directly to what you’ve already documented about issues in the case:

---

Potential Law Clerk Violations in Crafting Judge Miller’s Orders

A. Violation of Duty of Accuracy and Candor

• Mischaracterizing deposition testimony: Drafting orders that misquoted or distorted parties’ sworn deposition answers, making them appear different from what was actually said.

• Omitting material evidence: Excluding highly relevant documents, forensic reports, or context that would have favored Plaintiffs (e.g., undisclosed text deletions, incomplete discovery responses).

• Framing disputed facts as undisputed: Presenting clear factual disputes (which must go to a jury under Minnesota law) as if no reasonable dispute existed, thereby supporting improper summary judgment.

• Retroactively applying new legal standards: Assisting Judge Miller in applying criminal statutes retroactively or improperly in civil summary judgment rulings, violating civil procedure norms.

---

B. Violation of Duty of Impartiality and Fairness

• Selective recitation of facts: Highlighting only the Defendants’ evidence while minimizing, ignoring, or dismissing Plaintiffs’ favorable facts without fair evaluation.

• Advocacy disguised as judicial decision-making: Drafting orders that read like defense advocacy briefs, favoring the Defendants’ version of events in tone, structure, and omissions.

• Inconsistent standard of scrutiny: Applying harsher credibility tests to Plaintiffs’ evidence than to Defendants’ evidence (e.g., questioning Plaintiffs’ motives while ignoring Defendants’ text message deletions).

---

C. Violation of Duty to Maintain Judicial Integrity

• Participation in biased adjudication: If the clerk recognized (or should have recognized) that the drafts were intentionally one-sided but continued drafting them without objection or correction.

• Creating an appearance of partiality: Crafting rulings that would cause an informed observer to reasonably question whether the case was decided based on law and facts rather than bias.

---

D. Violation of Judicial Employee Code of Ethics

• Canon 1 breach: Undermining the judiciary’s appearance of neutrality by producing orders that appeared result-driven.

• Canon 2 breach: Creating the appearance of impropriety by participating in selective presentation of facts.

• Canon 3 breach: Failing to perform duties diligently and impartially when drafting or recommending rulings.

• Canon 4 breach: Failing to avoid conflicts of interest, especially if personal loyalties (e.g., James Morrison’s undisclosed prior clerkship ties to opposing counsel’s father) influenced the substance of the orders.

---

E. Violation of Duty to Report Judicial Misconduct

• Failure to act on knowledge of judicial bias: If the law clerk was aware that Judge Miller was acting with partiality or knowingly misrepresenting the record but did not escalate concerns to appropriate oversight bodies (e.g., Chief Judge Fritz, Minnesota Board on Judicial Standards).

---

Summary

Key Insight:
While clerks are supposed to follow judges’ instructions, they are not shielded from responsibility if they participate in unethical drafting. Their duties require them to resist or report serious distortions, not just blindly facilitate them.