During the course of our lawsuit, I openly questioned how we could lose a case where the facts and the law consistently appeared to support us, and where members of the opposing side had failed to disclose relevant evidence, deleted evidence surrounding every significant event, and lied about it under oath.
At some point, in a private conversation, I heard a phrase I had never encountered before.
We had been “hometowned.”
At first, the term sounded informal—almost dismissive. But the more I thought about it, and the more I examined what actually happened in our case, the more that explanation began to fit far better than any notion that the outcome was driven by neutral application of law to facts.
What Does “Hometowned” Mean?
In the context of legal proceedings, “hometowned” refers to a situation in which outcomes appear to be influenced—consciously or unconsciously—by local relationships, shared professional history, and institutional familiarity, rather than by the evidentiary record or governing law.
It often manifests through:
- Deference to familiar attorneys
- Trust in known local narratives
- Minimization of misconduct by “one of our own”
- Skepticism toward outsiders raising uncomfortable issues
- Procedural decisions that consistently benefit one side
- Judicial blind spots when conflicts or appearances of bias arise
“Hometowning” thrives in environments where everyone knows everyone—or used to work for everyone—and where those connections are treated as benign, irrelevant, or simply “how things are done.”
Why This Concept Matters in Our Case
Despite the fact that we live in Fergus Falls, the location of the Otter Tail County Courthouse, we were not part of the courthouse ecosystem.
Before our lawsuit:
- We did not know Judge Miller
- We did not know Judge Hansen
- We did not know James Morrison
- We did not know any courthouse staff
- We did not have longstanding professional or social ties to the local legal community
In contrast, the defense side of our case was deeply embedded in that local judicial history.
The relationships mattered—whether acknowledged or not.
How Legal Community Networks Reinforce Familiarity
One of the reasons small legal communities develop powerful internal networks is the frequency and intensity of social and professional interaction among judges, lawyers, and clerks. In Minnesota, licensed attorneys, judges, and clerks regularly attend Continuing Legal Education (CLE) classes, conferences, institutes, seminars, and bar association events throughout the year as part of ongoing requirements and professional development. (MN CLE Seminars)
These events—whether large statewide seminars, specialized practice workshops, or informal networking receptions—bring together members of the bench and bar repeatedly over time. While these activities serve important educational and ethical purposes, they also foster familiarity and shared professional culture. Judges may see the same presenters year after year. Law clerks may attend sessions hosted by judges who later hire them. Defense counsel may speak on panels alongside sitting judiciary and appellate staff. These interactions create networks of professional familiarity that can influence perceptions, expectations, and assumptions inside and outside the courtroom.
For litigants with no prior visibility in that network—especially those represented by outside counsel who do not regularly practice locally—this familiarity can translate into a subtle disadvantage when credibility, procedural discretion, and interpretive judgment are exercised.
The Overlapping Relationships in Our Case
Consider the following undisputed facts:
- Defense counsel Kirsten Hansen is the daughter of retired Otter Tail County Judge Mark F. Hansen.
- The presiding judge in our case, Judge Kevin M. Miller, previously appeared before Judge Hansen as an attorney and later served in the same courthouse while Judge Hansen was acting as a senior judge.
- Judge Miller’s law clerk, James Morrison, who is listed as the document author for fourteen orders in our case, was previously Judge Hansen’s law clerk.
- This prior clerkship relationship was never disclosed—despite its direct relevance to impartiality and appearance-of-fairness standards.
None of these facts, standing alone, automatically prove bias.
But together, they form a dense web of professional familiarity that demanded heightened transparency and caution—neither of which occurred.
When Relationships Quietly Supersede Rules
Throughout our case, troubling patterns emerged:
- Discovery violations were excused or minimized
- Spoliation was reframed or avoided rather than adjudicated
- Sworn testimony contradicted by forensic evidence was credited
- Orders repeatedly omitted or selectively summarized key facts
- Arguments about impartiality were deemed forfeited or immaterial
- Disclosure obligations were treated as optional
These patterns can be even more pronounced in jurisdictions where judges, attorneys, law clerks, and staff participate regularly in the same Minnesota CLE events, bar association gatherings, and educational conferences—venues where professional cliques form and reputations solidify long before disputes ever reach docket numbers.
Each decision, viewed in isolation, might be explained away.
Viewed collectively, they reflect something more systemic:
a courthouse that did not perceive risk because it trusted itself.
This is precisely how “hometowning” operates.
Law Clerks, Undisclosed Ties, and Invisible Influence
Law clerks are not neutral typists. They research, draft, shape, and frame judicial decisions.
When a law clerk:
- Previously worked for a judge who is a close family member of defense counsel
- Authors or co-authors a significant number of dispositive orders
- Does so without disclosure to the parties
…the issue is not motive.
The issue is process integrity.
A system that treats those connections as irrelevant is a system that has normalized them.
Independent Investigation and Selected Facts
One of the most disturbing aspects of our case was how the court appeared to:
- Independently reinterpret evidence
- Discount forensic records
- Reframe testimony without evidentiary support
- Selectively emphasize facts favorable to one side
This was not neutral judging. It was narrative control.
And narrative control is far easier when the narrative feels familiar.
Voluntary vs. Mandatory Recusal—And the Problem With Neither
Our experience underscores a fundamental flaw in recusal doctrine:
- Voluntary recusal depends on a judge recognizing a problem
- Mandatory recusal depends on clear disclosure
When neither occurs—because relationships are viewed as normal rather than disqualifying—the system fails silently.
Not necessarily through malice, but through institutional blindness.
A Plausible Explanation—Not an Excuse
“Hometowned” is not an accusation.
It is an explanation.
It explains how:
- Serious ethical issues can be overlooked
- Disclosure obligations can be minimized
- Outsiders can be disbelieved
- Local misconduct can be normalized
- Outcomes can drift far from the evidentiary record
Most importantly, it explains how a judicial system can sincerely believe it acted fairly—while failing to do so.
Why This Matters Beyond Our Case
Our experience is not unique.
Any courthouse with:
- Multi-generational legal families
- Former clerks now serving as judges
- Judges rotating between active and senior status
- Small professional circles
- Unquestioned assumptions of trust
is vulnerable to the same dynamics.
Any courthouse with multi-generational legal families and recurring interaction through statewide CLE, bar association, and professional events—where judges and counsel repeatedly cross paths—can be vulnerable to the same dynamics of familiarity outweighing impartial evaluation of evidence and law.
Justice does not fail only when it is corrupted.
It also fails when it becomes too comfortable with itself.
Minnesota’s legal community openly acknowledges the risk that familiarity and unconscious bias can influence decision-making. Minnesota CLE regularly offers courses addressing judicial ethics, implicit bias, conflicts of interest, appearance-of-impropriety standards, and the importance of maintaining public confidence in the courts. Judges, attorneys, and law clerks attend these programs together—often repeatedly over the course of their careers—discussing precisely the kinds of dynamics raised in this case. That such training is necessary underscores an institutional recognition that professional relationships and shared history can subtly shape perceptions and judgment. Yet in our case, despite these well-understood risks and despite overlapping professional relationships that would plainly warrant heightened disclosure and caution, those safeguards appeared absent. The result was not transparency or distance, but a process in which familiarity was normalized and concerns about impartiality were minimized rather than confronted.
Minnesota’s Code of Judicial Conduct expressly recognizes that even the appearance of partiality—arising from relationships, familiarity, or undisclosed connections—can undermine public confidence in the judiciary, regardless of whether actual bias exists.
Final Thought
We did not lose because we lacked facts.
We did not lose because we lacked law.
We did not lose because we were dishonest or unprepared.
We lost in a system that never truly saw us as people—
because it’s internal relationships were stronger and because it never truly saw itself as conflicted.
That is what it means to be hometowned.
And until courts take appearance-of-fairness obligations seriously—especially in small, interconnected legal communities—this will continue to happen to others who walk into court believing that truth and law are enough.
They should be.
But sometimes, they aren’t.
🔗 For more on judicial ethics and court reform in Minnesota, visit https://justice-denied.org.