--- title: Judicial Officer Relationships url: https://justice-denied.org/judicial-officer-relationships/ date: 2025-03-01T21:19:25+00:00 modified: 2026-10-10T16:00:33+00:00 lang: en_US --- ## Introduction Our case has had more than its share of unusual events, almost from the very beginning. The first hearing occurred on January 20, 2021, before Otter Tail County District Court Judge Kevin M. Miller. During the hearing, Attorney Kirsten Hansen, Counsel for Defendants Sean and Renee Stevenson, made a specific point of announcing her relationship to retired Otter Tail County District Court Judge Mark F. Hansen, bringing to the Court’s attention the fact that Judge Hansen was her father: > **MS. HANSEN:** Your Honor, I think I’d liked to go first because I think we’ve all joined in the same request and this a motion under 542.10, so I think that I will go first and if there’s additional things maybe Mr. Tentinger could chime in. Judge, I did want to indicate one thing to the Court, **I was told to tell the Court this. My father is retired Judge Mark Hansen. He told me I needed to let you know in case you thought there was a conflict.** I don’t think there is, but **when I’m told by somebody to tell you**. I’m sorry. I just wanted to make sure that was on the record. > > **THE COURT:** Understood. And **I appeared before your father. Never worked — he had retired prior to me coming to Otter Tail County, and I’ve seen him around a little bit as a retired judge when he was still doing that. But he was never a colleague in the sense of sharing chambers or anything like that, so I would not myself deem that any type of conflict.** Otherwise, I’d have that with other judges and such. So, thank you for – > > **MS. HANSEN:** That’s what I thought but I wanted to be – > > **THE COURT:** Understood. > > **MS. HANSEN:** — totally (indiscernible). > > **THE COURT:** Understood. All right. You may proceed counsel. (Doc. 226, Tr. 3:20-4:21.) (emphasis added) According to the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure [63.03](https://www.revisor.mn.gov/court_rules/cp/id/63/ "MN Rules of Civil Procedure 63.03"), a judge cannot be removed by the parties, without showing that he is disqualified under the MN Code of Judicial Conduct, once the first hearing in the case has commenced. By the time we learned of the defense attorney’s connection to her father, it was too late to remove Judge Miller without cause. It was never disclosed that Judge Hansen worked extensively as a senior judge following his retirement and held hundreds of judicial hearings at the Otter Tail County Courthouse until December 6, 2019. It was also never disclosed that Judge Hansen’s former Law Clerk, James Morrison, worked extensively for Judge Miller on Plaintiffs’ case. Plaintiffs independently found this information on April 2, 2024, after our case had been dismissed at summary judgment, after our appeal had been argued, and six days before the ruling by the MN Court of Appeals. Law clerks and judges have a close, confidential working relationship, although the division of work varies by chambers. Justice Felix Frankfurter described his clerks as “junior partners—junior only in years.” Federal courts have likewise described clerks as sounding boards, legal researchers, and confidential advisers with unusual access to a judge’s thinking. The judge nevertheless remains responsible for every ruling issued in the judge’s name. According to file metadata, Clerk Morrison authored at least [14 of Judge Miller’s orders](#james-morrison-orders) in our case, including the summary judgment order that dismissed our case. For later Judge Miller orders listing “7th Judicial District” in their Author and embedded creator fields, see [When the “Author” Disappears](https://justice-denied.org/when-the-author-disappears/ "When the Author Disappears"), updated with the July 23, September 18, and October 5, 2026 examples. The relationships between the judicial officers and defendants are shown below: ![Original relationship diagram showing Judges Mark Hansen and Kevin Miller, law clerk James Morrison, defense counsel, and represented defendants.](https://justice-denied.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/judicial-relationships-modern-powerpoint-original.svg) *Disclosed and Undisclosed Judicial RelationshipsClick or tap the image to enlarge.* These disclosed and undisclosed relationships, especially when considered along with the rulings in the case and many other irregularities, were so concerning that Plaintiffs brought this issue to the attention of Judge Miller in a letter dated June 17, 2024, along with several sworn declarations. (Docs. 487, 488, 489.) Plaintiffs requested that Judge Miller voluntarily recuse himself. Two days later, Attorney Kirsten Hansen filed a response with the Court that stated in part, “This Court has been nothing if not fair and even-handed, as has been upheld by the Court of Appeals.” (Doc. 490.) Judge Miller would not address our concerns without a motion. (Doc. 491.) Plaintiffs then filed a motion requesting Judge Miller’s recusal, based on an appearance of impropriety, due to the undisclosed law clerk relationships. (Doc. 503.) This motion included a reply memorandum and several more sworn declarations. (Docs. 504, 505, 506, 524, 525, 526, 527, 539.) Judge Miller ultimately denied our motion (Doc. 549) and stated in his December 18, 2024 order: > Plaintiffs are seeking to disqualify this Court and vacate orders in which Jim Morrison,[\[1\]](https://justice-denied.org/judicial-officer-relationships/#footnote-1) a law clerk employed with the Minnesota Judicial Branch in Otter Tail County, was the “author.” > > … > > Based on an objective examination of the facts in this matter, a reasonable examiner would not question Judge Miller’s impartiality. > > … > > A reasonable examiner would not question the Court’s impartiality based on Mr. Morrison’s work with the Court in this matter; therefore, disqualification is not required, and the motion to disqualify will be denied. (Doc. 549, at 3, 6.)[\[2\]](https://justice-denied.org/judicial-officer-relationships/#footnote-2) Plaintiffs appealed Judge Miller’s December 18, 2024 order. (Case Number A25-0186.) On July 28, 2025, the MN Court of Appeals affirmed the district court. However, for the first time in appellate court history, according to my research, the Court of Appeals deemed that we had forfeited the issue of Judge Miller’s independent investigation into his law clerk’s employment history. For additional background and AI-assisted analysis of independent judicial investigations, visit our [Independent Investigations](https://justice-denied.org/independent-investigations/ "Independent Investigations") page. 1. Plaintiffs do not know and have never met Mr. Morrison. As a result, we have never used the informal name “Jim” in any of our filings, instead always using the formal name “James” to refer to Clerk Morrison. [↑](https://justice-denied.org/judicial-officer-relationships/#footnote-ref-1) 2. Judge Miller’s two orders in Plaintiffs’ case following our June 17, 2024 letter were authored by Katie Gustafson, not by James Morrison. (*See* Doc. 546, 549.) Katie Gustafson is not listed as the author of any other orders in our case. [↑](https://justice-denied.org/judicial-officer-relationships/#footnote-ref-2) ## AI Analysis Plaintiffs used Artificial Intelligence (AI) to analyze Attorney Hansen’s and Judge Miller’s responsibilities to disclose this information and to recuse. This analysis is \[[here](https://justice-denied.org/voluntary-or-mandatory-recusal/ "Voluntary or Mandatory Recusal")\]. Plaintiffs also used Artificial Intelligence (AI) to analyze Judge Miller’s December 18, 2024 Order Denying Recusal and Vacatur: ![ChatGPT 4o](https://eadn-wc02-18301506.nxedge.io/cdn/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/ChatGPT-Logo.png) ### **ChatGPT (AI) Analysis** - **Judicial Staff Can Create an Appearance of Impropriety** In *Powell v. Anderson*, an appellate judge’s law firm had a minor past relationship with one party. The Minnesota Supreme Court still ruled that disqualification was necessary because the connection created an appearance of favoritism. Here, Morrison was a law clerk for the father of the defense attorney—a far stronger connection than in *Powell*. - **The “Reasonable Examiner” Standard Was Ignored** Would an unbiased layperson question impartiality if they knew a law clerk who drafted orders had worked for a judge closely tied to one party’s attorney? The answer is likely yes, meaning disqualification should have been required. - **Judicial Confidence Is Already Undermined** The fact that this motion was filed at all proves the public perception of bias exists. *Liljeberg* itself held that late-discovered conflicts require strong action to preserve judicial credibility. - **Key Takeaways from Other Cases** Minnesota and U.S. Supreme Court cases consistently favor disqualification when a reasonable observer would suspect bias. Judge Miller’s dismissal of the appearance of impropriety contradicts past rulings requiring recusal. - **Conclusion: Appearance of Impropriety Was Present** Judge Miller’s failure to disclose his law clerk’s past employment in a timely manner raises serious concerns. His reasoning minimizes the power law clerks have in judicial decision-making, contradicting *Powell* and *Caperton*. The reasonable examiner test was ignored, despite clear case law requiring its application. His use of *Liljeberg* was selective, applying its factors to justify judicial finality rather than to evaluate bias. - 📌 **Final Judgment:** A reasonable observer would likely see a conflict of interest. Judge Miller should have recused himself. AI Bias Indicator Score −9 Very strong appearance of favoritism toward Defendants −9 −10 −5 0 +5 +10 Favors Defendants Neutral Favors Plaintiffs *AI assessment of the appearance of impartiality.* *End of AI-generated analysisModel: ChatGPT 4o* Official sourceMinnesota Code of Judicial ConductPreamble · Quoted verbatim ![Preamble to the Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct](https://eadn-wc02-18301506.nxedge.io/cdn/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/MN-Judicial-Center-scaled-1.jpg) > An independent, fair, and impartial judiciary is indispensable to our system of justice. The United States legal system is based upon the principle that an independent, impartial, and competent judiciary, composed of men and women of integrity, will interpret and apply the law that governs our society. Thus, the judiciary plays a central role in preserving the principles of justice and the rule of law. Inherent in all the Rules contained in this Code are the precepts that judges, individually and collectively, must respect and honor the judicial office as a public trust and strive to maintain and enhance confidence in the legal system. > > Judges should maintain the dignity of judicial office at all times, and avoid both impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in their professional and personal lives. They should aspire at all times to conduct that ensures the greatest possible public confidence in their independence, impartiality, integrity, and competence. *Preamble to the [Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct](https://www.revisor.mn.gov/court_rules/rule/prjudi-0_P/) · Quoted verbatim* Public-Record Authorship ## Orders attributed to James Morrison # Date Judicial Decision(s) Doc. # 1 September 6, 2022 Denied Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Protective Order (Clergy Privilege) Denied Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Granted Defendants’ Request for Attorney Fees 264 2 September 6, 2022 Denied Plaintiffs’ Letter for Reconsideration #2 266 3 September 7, 2022 Granted Plaintiffs’ Request for Attorney Fees as Discovery Sanction Against Lisa Stevenson-Allen. (Final award of $6284.00 to Plaintiffs.) 268 4 October 10, 2022 Granted Second Order Awarding Attorney Fees as Discovery Sanction against Plaintiffs. (Final award of $17,021.50 to Defendants.) 311 5 October 11, 2022 Granted Plaintiffs’ LIMITED Motion to Reconsider #3 313 6 December 6, 2022 Granted in Part Plaintiffs’ Motion for Spoliation Sanctions (Sean) Denied Plaintiffs’ Motion for Spoliation Sanctions (Lisa) Denied Plaintiffs’ Motion for Spoliation Sanctions (Renee) Denied Plaintiffs’ Motion to Reconsider Reserved Plaintiffs’ Motion to Extend Discovery (Effective Denial) Granted Defendants’ Motion to Compel (Marie’s Medical Records) Granted Defendants’ Motion to Compel (Spousal Conversation Video) Reserved Defendants’ Motion to Compel (Craig’s Book) 366 7 December 6, 2022 Nunc Pro Tunc Order Modifying Sanction Against Plaintiffs 367 8 December 6, 2022 Denied Plaintiffs’ Request for a Discovery Conference 368 9 February 13, 2023 Denied Defendants’ Request for Duplicative Medical Authorizations 381 10 May 21, 2023 Granted Plaintiffs’ Request for Sanctions Against Sean for Forensic Examinations Required Due to Sean’s Deletion of Evidence and Perjury 422 11 June 16, 2023 Granted Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment 429 12 October 13, 2023 Denied Defendants’ Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions Denied Plaintiffs’ Request for Attorney Fees 464 13 October 13, 2023 Granted in Part Defendants’ Request for Fees and Taxation 466 14 May 17, 2024 Entry of Judgment Regarding Costs and Disbursements 482 ## Explore related coverage ### Start with these - [A Judge’s Most Sacred Responsibility](https://justice-denied.org/a-judges-most-sacred-responsibility/) - [Voluntary or Mandatory Recusal](https://justice-denied.org/voluntary-or-mandatory-recusal/) - [When Connections Don’t Count](https://justice-denied.org/when-connections-dont-count/) ### Recusal and case analysis - [Bias Analysis – December 18, 2024 Recusal and Vacatur Order](https://justice-denied.org/bias-analysis-december-18-2024-recusal-and-vacatur-order/) - [Forfeiture That Wasn’t](https://justice-denied.org/forfeiture-that-wasnt/) - [Independent Investigation and Selected Facts](https://justice-denied.org/independent-investigation-and-selected-facts/) - [Independent Investigations](https://justice-denied.org/independent-investigations/) ### Judicial relationships and accountability - [The Quest for Truth Should Alarm No One](https://justice-denied.org/the-quest-for-truth-should-alarm-no-one/) - [When Familiarity Breeds Bias](https://justice-denied.org/when-familiarity-breeds-bias/) - [When Judges Investigate on Their Own](https://justice-denied.org/when-judges-investigate-on-their-own/) - [When the “Author” Disappears](https://justice-denied.org/when-the-author-disappears/) - [When the Courthouse Proves the Point](https://justice-denied.org/when-the-courthouse-proves-the-point/) - [When the Judges Investigate Themselves](https://justice-denied.org/when-the-judges-investigate-themselves/)