BJS Private Discipline Summaries

Accessible document transcript

[Page 1]
1

PRIVATE DISCIPLINE SUMMARIES

Admonitions

• Admonitions are issued for misconduct that “appears to be of an isolated and non-serious
nature.” Board Rule 6(f)(5)(ii). See also Board Rule 6(f)(6).
• The Board has been authorized to issue private admonitions since August 1, 2009. Since that
date, the Board has issued 47 admonitions. Many of the admonitions are summarized below.
• Rules cited below refer to the rules in the Code of Judicial Conduct unless otherwise noted.

File no. Conduct
2022-20 In a telephone call with Judge B, Judge A yelled and used profanity directed at Judge B.
On another occasion, Judge A yelled at Judge B in a Zoom meeting while judicial staff
were present. In addition, in conversations with Judge B, Judge A made disparaging
comments about other judges and attorneys, many of which did not serve a legitimate
purpose in furtherance of Judge A’s judicial duties. The Board found violations of Rules
1.1 (Compliance with the Law), 1.2 (Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary), 2.5(A)
(Competence, Diligence, and Cooperation), and 2.8(B) (Demeanor).
2022-08 A district court judge personally sued two defendants in a conciliation court case. Prior to
bringing suit, the district court judge abused the prestige of judicial office by stating in a
letter to the defendants: “Being a District Court Judge…myself and presiding over
matters similar to this.” The reference to the judicial title came immediately after a threat
to sue the defendants. The reference was made in a way to show that the judge had
special knowledge of the court’s procedures and the conciliation court referee’s
expectations. The defendants perceived the judge’s reference as intimidating, and the
reference undoubtedly harmed the defendants’ confidence in the integrity of the
judiciary. The Board found violations of Rules 1.1 (Compliance with the Law), 1.2
(Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary), 1.3 (Abuse of the Prestige of the Judicial
Office), and 2.8(B) (Demeanor).
2022-05 A judge engaged in inappropriate conduct directed toward court administrative staff,
other judges, and justice partners, including verbally berating court staff, and yelling at
another judge during bench meetings. The Board found violations of Rules 1.1
(Compliance with the Law), 1.22 (Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary), .5
(Competence, Diligence, and Cooperation), and .8(B) (Demeanor) of the Code of Judicial
Conduct. The judge agreed to complete the following conditions: Meet with the Board’s
Executive Secretary, meet with a mentor, complete a course on effective communication
in the workplace, confer with a therapist to assist in addressing the causes of the
misconduct, and mail letters of apology.

[Page 2]
2

File no. Conduct
2021-29 A judge told a conciliation court clerk, in private, that the clerk always looked nice and
that the judge liked the dress the clerk wore the day before, that the clerk could file for a
Harassing Restraining Order against the judge, and that the judge could ask the clerk for
a hug, but it would be inappropriate. The comments the judge made to the clerk, even if
said in a joking manner, constitute sexual harassment under Judicial Branch Policy 304
and the Code of Judicial Conduct. The judge’s conduct violated Rule 1.1 (Compliance
with the Law), 1.2 (Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary), 1.3 (Avoiding Abuse of the
Prestige of Judicial Office), 2.3 (Bias, Prejudice, and Harassment), and 2.8 (Decorum and
Demeanor) of the Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct and issued an admonition with
conditions.
2021-28 A conciliation court referee unnecessarily berated an attorney for failing to follow the
court rules even though the attorney’s error did not have an adverse effect on the
administration of justice. The attorney had filed exhibits one day late. The referee
admitted to being “really hard” on the attorney, and that the referee had gone overboard.
The Board found violations of Rules 1.1 (Compliance with the Law(, 1.2 (Promoting
Confidence in the Judiciary), 2.2 (Impartiality and Fairness), 2.6 (A) (Right to Be Heard),
and 2.8(B) (Demeanor).
2021-02 Before the beginning of a hearing by Zoom, a judge, not realizing others had joined the
meeting, used a derogatory word to refer to a party. The comment was overheard by
others at the Zoom hearing, including the party’s attorney. The judge showed remorse,
immediately apologized, and self-reported his conduct to the Board. The Board found
violations of Rules 1.1 (Compliance with the Law), 1.2 (Promoting Confidence in the
Judiciary), 2.2 (Impartiality and Fairness), and 2.8(B) (Demeanor).
2020-31 A judge self-reported that a Judicial Branch audit showed that the judge and the judge’s
staff engaged in inappropriate Microsoft Lync messages which contained negative
comments about attorneys and parties appearing before the Court. The messages could be
considered harmful to the reputation and business of the Judicial Branch. The Board
found violations of Rules 1.2 (Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary); 2.2 (Impartiality
and Fairness); 2.8(B) (Decorum and Demeanor); and 2.12 (Supervisory Duties).
2020-21 A judge made statements to a parent in a custody matter that were abusive, accusatory,
and inappropriate. The judge retired and agreed to never serve as a Retired Judge Subject
to Recall, commonly known as a “Senior Judge.” The Board found violations of Rules
1.1 (Compliance with the Law), 1.2 (Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary), 2.2
(Impartiality and Fairness), and 2.8(B) (Demeanor).
2019-18 A judge assigned to a criminal matter telephoned a managing prosecutor, who was not
assigned to the matter, to draw attention to the level of charges. The judge later recused
from the matter. As a result of the telephone conversation, the State amended the
complaint by adding a more serious charge. The judge admitted to a technical violation
of the rules against ex parte communication. The Board found a violation of Rules 1.1
(Compliance with the Law) 1.2 (Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary), 2.2
(Impartiality and Fairness), and 2.9(A) (Ex Parte Communications).

[Page 3]
3

File no. Conduct
2018-12 At a sentencing hearing, a judge, who was not the presiding judge, spoke on behalf of a
defendant, vouched for the defendant’s character, and stated that the defendant should
receive a downward dispositional departure. The judge stated that prison was not in the
defendant’s best interest even though the sentence the parties had negotiated called for
prison time. The Board found a violation of Rules 1.3 (Avoiding Abuse of the Prestige
of Judicial Office) and 3.3 (Testifying as a Character Witness).
2018-05,
2018-06,
2018-11
At a hearing, a judge served as the lawyer for the respondents, who are the judge’s
relatives. At the hearing, the judge made statements, which at a minimum, vouched for
the character of the respondents, and testified about the judge’s personal observations
related to the facts of the case. The assistant county attorney objected to the testimony,
and the presiding judge sustained the objections. The judge was not under subpoena.
These actions violated Rule 1.3 (Avoiding Abuse of the Prestige of Judicial Office), Rule
3.3 (Testifying as a Character Witness) and Rule 3.10 (Practice of Law). Although the
Board believes the judge’s misconduct to be serious, it determined that mitigating factors
made a private admonition the more appropriate discipline.
2017-26 During jury deliberations, a judge answered written questions from the jury outside the
presence of the parties. The questions related to substantive issues. As a result, the
defendant moved for a new trial and the judge granted the request. The Board found
violations of Rules 1.1 (Compliance with the Law), 1.2 (Promoting Confidence in the
Judiciary), 2.2 (Impartiality and Fairness), 2.5(A) (Competence and Diligence in the
Performance of Duties), 2.6(A) (Right to Be Heard), and 2.9(A) (Ex Parte
Communications) of the Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct, along with Board Rule
4(A)(5) (Harm to the Administration of Justice) of the Rules of Board on Judicial
Standards.
2017-04 A judge imposed a monetary sanction on an attorney whose conduct placed unnecessary
burdens on the court and opposing party, without providing him advance notice and
without giving him an opportunity to be heard. The Board found a violation of Rule
2.6(A).
2016-32 A judge issued an order in which he made a negative statement about the character of a
person associated with one of the parties. The statement related to a matter affecting the
judge’s personal interests. This matter was unrelated to the case before the judge. The
Board found a violation of Rules 1.3, 2.4(B), and 2.10(A). In addition, the order was
issued ten days after the 90-day deadline in violation of Minn. Stat. § 546.27. The Board
found a violation of Rules 1.1 and 2.5(A).
2016-30 A judge issued an order eleven days after the 90-day deadline in violation of Minn. Stat.
§ 546.27. Two years earlier, the Board had issued a letter of caution to the judge for
delayed decisions in two other cases. The Board found a violation of Rule 2.5(A).

[Page 4]
4

File no. Conduct
2015-21 A judge failed to properly supervise two employees: a court reporter and paralegal.
Contrary to judicial branch policy, the judge allowed one employee to take comp time
and allowed the other employee to work from home without a written agreement. A
judicial branch auditor found that the two employees were paid for hours not worked.
The employees’ annual leave balances were reduced in order to repay the judicial branch.
The Board found a violation of Rules 1.2, 2.5(A), and 2.12(A).
2015-07

A judge’s interest in a local controversy was personal and unrelated to judicial duties.
The judge sent communications regarding the controversy to persons potentially
interested in the matter. One communication connected the private controversy with an
earlier official act by the judge. The Board found a violation of Rule 1.3. The
admonition memorandum cited Matter of Mosley, 102 P.3d 555 (Nev. 2004) (disciplining
a judge who, among other things, used judicial letterhead to write a letter on family
members’ behalf).
2014-64 In connection with a child welfare proceeding, a judge interviewed the 12-year-old child.
The judge denied the county attorney’s request to be present, contrary to Minn. Stat.
§ 260C.163, subds. 6, 7 (2014) and Minn. R. Juv. Pro. P. 27.04. The Board found a
violation of Rule 2.9(A) and (C). The child was moved from one family to a second
family for a pre-adoption placement.

The second family had the right to be heard in any hearing in the case. Minn. R. Juv.
Pro. P. 22.02, subd. 2. When the judge was informed of a therapist’s recommendation
that the child remain with the first family, the judge scheduled a hearing on three and a
half hours’ notice. The judge did not attempt to learn whether the second family could
participate in the hearing. Court staff informed the second family’s mother and gave her
a dial-in number. The mother was able to listen to only part of the hearing and did not
otherwise participate, and the judge was not aware that she was on the call. At the
hearing, the judge ordered that the child be returned to the first family immediately. The
Board found the judge violated Rule 2.6(A) by not giving the second family a reasonable
opportunity to be heard.
2014-54 Using the judge’s official position to obtain and retain the judge’s own divorce file,
which the judge then lost, in violation of Rules 1.2, 1.3, 2.1, 2.4(B), 2.5(A), and 3.1(E).
2014-20 During a trial, a judge asked one of the parties argumentative and sarcastic questions.
During an attorney’s cross-examination of a party, as the attorney was part way into his
next question, the judge interjected: “I’ll be right back. Just continue without me.” The
judge got up and walked out of the courtroom. Later, the judge returned to the courtroom,
stating, “I’ve never done that before. It felt good.” Sometime later, the judge asked the
courtroom clerk to give him another file and said to the attorneys: “Do whatever you
want. This is nothing but a cat fight, slinging mud. I am no longer participating in it.
Have at it.” The Board found a violation of Rules 1.2 (Promoting Confidence in the
Judiciary), 2.2 (Impartiality and Fairness), 2.5(A) (Competence, Diligence, and
Cooperation), and 2.8(B) (Decorum, Demeanor, and Communication with Jurors).

[Page 5]
5

File no. Conduct
2014-15 Not ruling on a habeas corpus petition for more than four and a half months after the case
was submitted, 51 days beyond the statutory 90-day period, despite receiving notice from
court administration that the case was aging, in violation of Rule 2.5(A) and Minn. Stat.
§ 546.27.
2014-11 Ordering judgment in favor of a landlord in an eviction case without receiving any
evidence and without affording a trial to the tenants who contested the eviction, in
violation of Rules 1.2, 2.5(A), and 2.6(A). The admonition is available in redacted form
at http://www.bjs.state.mn.us/file/private-discipline/1411PrivAdmonRedacted.pdf.
2013-70 Contacting a police chief to criticize a plea agreement proposed by the city attorney in a
case that was pending before the judge, in violation of Code Rules 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, and
2.4(B) and Board Rule 4(a)(5) and (6).
2013-38 Engaging in a pattern of disparaging comments about other judges, attorneys, parties, and
court staff that served no legitimate purpose and reasonably appeared to the targeted
attorneys and parties to be close-minded about their cases, in violation of Rules 2.2,
2.5(A), 2.6(A), and 2.8(B). The admonition is available in redacted form at
http://www.bjs.state.mn.us/file/private-discipline/1338PrivAdmonRedacted.pdf.
2013-01 Not ruling on a submitted case for 171 days after the case was submitted, 81 days beyond
the statutory 90-day period, in violation of Rules 1.1, 1.2, and 2.5, Board Rule 4(a)(5)
and (6), and Minn. Stat. § 546.27.
2012-60 Presiding in a criminal trial without disclosing to the defendant that a retainer contract to
act as an expert witness was at that time in existence with the county in which the trial
was taking place, in violation of Rules 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 2.2, and 2.11(A) and Board Rule
4(a)(5) and (6).
2012-48 Not ruling on a submitted case for 97 days, seven days beyond the statutory 90-day
period, in violation of Rules 1.1, 1.2, and 2.5, Board Rule 4(a)(5) and (6), and Minn. Stat.
§ 546.27.
2012-15,
2012-16
Following a hearing in a CHIPS proceeding, the judge, without giving the parties timely
notice and opportunity to be heard, initiated and engaged in an ex parte communication
with a social worker who had previously acted as a witness in the case. The Board found
a violation of Rules 1.1, 1.2, 2.2, and 2.9(A) and Board Rule 4(a)(5) and (6).
2012-13 Not ruling on a submitted case for 110 days, 20 days beyond the statutory 90-day period,
in violation of Rules 1.1, 1.2, and 2.5, Board Rule 4(a)(5) and (6), and Minn. Stat. §
546.27.
2012-07 Issuing a warrant for the arrest of a party who failed to comply with an order to remain in
court for an indefinite period because her cell phone accidently rang in court during
proceedings, in violation of Rules 1.1, 1.2, 2.2, and 2.8(A) and (B) and Board Rule
4(a)(5) and (6).

[Page 6]
6

File no. Conduct
2011-05 Not ruling on a submitted case for 101 days, 11 days beyond the statutory 90-day period,
in violation of Rules 1.1, 1.2, and 2.5, Board Rule 4(a)(5) and (6), and Minn. Stat. §
546.27.
2010-113 Not ruling on a submitted case for 96 days, six days beyond the statutory 90-day period,
in violation of Rules 1.1, 1.2, and 2.5, Board Rule 4(a)(5) and (6), and Minn. Stat. §
546.27.
2010-73,
2010-74
Not ruling on one submitted case for 97 days and a second submitted case for 100 days,
respectively seven days and ten days beyond the statutory 90-day period, in violation of
Rules 1.1, 1.2, and 2.5, Board Rule 4(a)(5) and (6), and Minn. Stat. § 546.27.
2010-21 The judge stated to a criminal defendant that the judge automatically disqualified himself
from all matters involving his lawyer and that the judge had “absolutely no faith in any
representations” made by the lawyer. The judge was motivated in whole or in part by the
lawyer’s filing complaints about the judge with the Board. The Board found violations
of Rules 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.8(A), and 2.16 and Board Rule 4(a)(5) and (6).
2010-17 Not ruling on two submitted cases for 98 days, eight days beyond the statutory 90-day
period, in violation of Rules 1.1, 1.2, and 2.5, Board Rule 4(a)(5) and (6), and Minn. Stat.
§ 546.27.
2010-08 The judge permitted staff to search the Internet for a video that was the subject of the
case. Then, without first hearing from either party, the judge viewed the video and made
a preliminary determination that one of the parties and his attorney may not have been
truthful with the court. The Board found violations of Rules 1.1, 1.2, 2.6(A), and
2.9(A)(3) and (C) and Board Rules 4(a)(5) and (6).
2010-03 Frequently interrupting a party, questioning her in an aggressive tone, and not allowing
her an adequate opportunity to address the court, in violation of Rules 1.1, 1.2, 2.6(A),
and 2.8(A) and Board Rule 4(a)(5) and (6).
2010-02 Offering to bet a defendant that he would not prevail in a trial of his case, in violation of
Rules 1.1, 1.2, and 2.8(a) and Board Rule 4(a)(5) and (6).
2009-126 Making inappropriate comments and failing to treat a party with appropriate courtesy, in
violation of Rules 1.1, 1.2, and 2.8(A) and Board Rule 4(a)(5) and (6).
2009-120 Ordering newspaper reporter to leave the courtroom without providing the newspaper
company an opportunity to be heard and treating the reporter discourteously, in violation
of Rules 1.1, 1.2, 2.2, 2.6(A), and 2.8(B) and Board Rule 4(a)(5) and (6).

[Page 7]
7

File no. Conduct
2009-113 A judge sought to promote his business of presiding at weddings for a fee. The audience
for the judge’s promotional activity was the general public, especially persons interested
in weddings. The judge appeared as an exhibitor at a wedding trade show event, where
he personally solicited attendees to hire him. The judge also created and maintained a
website to promote his wedding service. He was identified and pictured as a judge on the
website. The website flashed the phrases “strong eloquent voice,” “professional and
dignified,” “friendly and flexible,” and contained testimonials from satisfied customers.
The Board found violations of Rules 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 3.1(A) 3.11(C), and 4.2(A)(1) and
Board Rule 4(a)(5) and (6).
2009-101 Issuing a final order without providing one of the parties an opportunity to be heard, in
violation of Rules 1.1, 1.2, 2.2, 2.3, 2.6(A), and 2.9(A) and Board Rule 4(a)(5) and (6).
2009-92 Meeting separately with the parties in an effort to settle a case despite the objection of
one of the parties, in violation of 1.1, 1.2, 2.2, 2.3, and 2.9(A)(4) and Board Rule 4(a)(5)
and (6).
2009-65,
2009-66
After he was removed from a case, the judge initiated an ex parte communication with
the newly assigned judge in an attempt to influence the latter’s decision, in violation of
Rules 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.2, 2.3, and 2.9 and Board Rule 4(a)(5) and (6).
2009-59 Making inappropriate comments at a hearing and issuing a final order without providing
one of the parties an opportunity to be heard, in violation of Rules 1.2, 2.8(A) and (B),
and 2.9 and Board Rule 4(a)(5) and (6).
2009-58 Conducting himself in an impatient, undignified, and discourteous manner toward court
participants, in violation of Rules 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.2, 2.3, and 2.8 and Board Rule 4(a)(5)
and (6).
2008-99 Conducting himself in an impatient, undignified, and discourteous manner toward court
participants, in violation of Rules 1.1, 1.2, 2.2, 2.3, and 2.8 and Board Rule 4(a)(5) and
(6).

[Page 8]
8

Deferred Disposition Agreement(s)

• The Board has the authority to enter into a private deferred disposition agreement with a judge
under Board Rule 6(f)(5)(i). After the period of time provided in the agreement, the Board issues
a specified disposition. The specified disposition may be public discipline, private discipline, or
no discipline, depending on the seriousness of the original misconduct and whether there has
been further misconduct.
• The Board has been authorized to issue deferred disposition agreements since August 1, 2009.
Since that date, the Board has entered into seven deferred disposition agreements. Six of these
agreements contemplated that the judge would receive a private admonition after the period of
time provided in the agreement. The matters are summarized below.

File no. Conduct
2024-35 A judge failed to timely manage the judge’s workload, which potentially impacted
litigants, court staff and justice partners. The Board issued a letter of caution to the judge,
(Board File No. 23 -44) and noted that failing to timely sign documents in the judge’s
signing folder could violate Rules 1.1 (Compliance with the Law), 1.2 (Promoting
Confidence in the Judiciary), 2.5 (Competence, D iligence, and Cooperation), and 2.7
(Responsibility to Decide) of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The judge failed to take
adequate actions to timely manage the workload and failed to dispose of matters promptly.
The Board and the judge entered into a defe rred disposition agreement, which will end
upon the judge’s retirement. If the Board does not learn of any further violations within
that time, the judge will receive a letter of caution.
2023-05 An investigation concluded that a judge failed to treat other judges, court administrative
staff, attorneys, and probation officers with courtesy and patience; the judge participated
in ex parte communications with litigants and an attorney; and the judge engaged in
workplace conduct with court administrative staff that made other staff uncomfortable and
that was objectively inappropriate for a judge. The Board found violations of Rules 1.1
(Compliance with the Law), 1.2 (Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary), 2.3(A),(B) (Bias,
Prejudice, and Harassment) , 2.5(A), (B) (Competence, Diligence, and Cooperation),
2.8(B) (Demeanor), and 2.9(A) (Ex Parte Communications), of the Code of Judicial
Conduct.

The Board and the judge entered into a deferred disposition agreement. The judge agreed
to meet with the Board’s Executive Secretary; meet with a Board -approved mentor
regularly; seek treatment from a Board -approved psychologist; complete a Board -
approved course in workplace boundaries; enroll in and successfully complete an ethics
and boundaries essay examination; and to not preside over any specialty court assignments.
If the Board does not learn of any further violations within three years, the judge w ill
receive a private admonition.

[Page 9]
9

File no. Conduct
2022-25
2022-30
2022-31
A judge made inappropriate comments to parties and attorneys in multiple cases and spoke
with court administrative staff about inappropriate topics. Upon learning of the complaints,
the judge sought and completed in-patient mental health treatment, and the judge continues
to follow a rigorous treatment plan. The Board found violations of Rules 1.1 (Compliance
with the Law), 1.2 (Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary), 2.2 (Impartiality and
Fairness), 2.3 (A) (Bias, Prejudice, and Harassment), 2.4 (B) (Exter nal Influences on
Judicial Conduct), 2.5 (A) (Competence, Diligence, and Cooperation), 2.8 (B)
(Demeanor), and 2.9 (C) (Independent Investigation) of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

The Board and the judge entered into a deferred disposition agreement. The judge agreed
to consult with a judicial mentor, meet with the Board’s Executive Secretary, and continue
meeting with a licensed psychologist or psychiatrist. If the Board does not l earn of any
further violations within five years, the judge will receive a private admonition.
2022-16
2022-18
An investigation concluded that a judge engaged in conduct that constituted harassment
and discrimination of the judge’s law clerks. The judge also admitted that at times the
judge was unprepared to preside over cases, that the judge did not meet internal court
deadlines, and that the judge made inappropriate comments in some cases. During this
time, the judge was suffering from an undiagnosed medical condition and side effects of
medications. The judge took an extended leave to resolve the medical issue s. The Board
founds violations of Rules 1.1 (Compliance with the Law), 1.2 (Promoting Confidence in
the Judiciary), 2.2 (Impartiality and Fairness), 2.3 (A) (Bias, Prejudice, and Harassment),
2.5 (Competence, Diligence, and Cooperation), and 3.8 (B) (De meanor) of the Code of
Judicial Conduct.

The Board and the judge entered into a deferred disposition agreement. The judge agreed
to meet with the Board’s Executive Secretary and agreed to make amends with the judge’s
colleagues and staff. If the Board does not learn of any further violations within two years,
the judge will receive a private admonition.
2019-20 A Board investigation showed that a judge yelled and swore at the judge’s law clerk for
minor errors on at least three separate occasions. The Board found violations of Rules 1.1
(Compliance with the Law), 1.2 (Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary), 2.3( B) (Bias or
Harassment), and 2.8(B) (Demeanor).

The Board and the judge entered into a deferred disposition agreement. The judge agreed
to consult with a judicial mentor, continue therapy, and refrain from the use of profanity
directed at persons in the courtroom and chambers. If the Board does not le arn of any
further violations within two years, the judge will receive a private admonition.

[Page 10]
10

File no. Conduct
2019-19 A Board investigation showed that during a hearing, a judge and a respondent’s attorney
engaged in a heated exchange regarding whether the respondent was legally entitled to a
continuance. In fact, the respondent was entitled to a continuance. The judge held the
attorney in contempt of court and ordered the bailiff to handcuff and take the attorney into
custody. The attorney was released eight minutes later. The judge required the attorney
to apologize for the attorney’s conduct in order to be released from custody.

The Board concluded that the interactions between the Court and the attorney were
insufficient to find the attorney in contempt and take the attorney into custody, requiring
an apology to be released from custody. In this case, the judge overreacted to a minor
incident. The judge abused the contempt power.

The Board found a violation of Rules 1.1 (Compliance with the Law), 1.2 (Promoting
Confidence in the Judiciary), 2.2 (Impartiality and Fairness), Rule 2.6(A) (Right to Be
Heard), and Rule 2.8(B) (Demeanor) of the Code of Judicial Conduct and entered into a
deferred disposition agreement with the judge, which includes mentorship with another
judge. If the Board does not learn of any further violations within two years, the judge will
receive a private admonition.
2019-17 A Board investigation showed that a referee participated in an ex parte communication
with the petitioner of a harassment restraining order, in court, after the hearing had
concluded, and after the respondent and legal counsel had left the courtroom. At a
minimum, the referee’s comments to the petitioner created an appearance of bias and
undermined the adversary system. The Board found a violation of Rules 1.1 (Compliance
with the Law), 1.2 (Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary), 2.2 (Impartiality and Fairness)
and 2.9(A) (Ex Parte Communications) of the Code of Judicial Conduct and entered into a
deferred disposition agreement with the referee. If the Board does not learn of any further
violations within two years, the referee will receive a letter of caution.
2015-05 A mother filed a petition for an order for protection regarding the father of her children.
The mother did not present evidence sufficiently supporting the petition. At the hearing,
the judge stated to the mother: “You need counseling badly, because your kids are
suffering. Not because of [their father]. Because of you. . . . I don’t believe your children
are afraid of their father. I think they’re afraid of you.” The record did not support the
statements that the children were afraid of the mother or w ere suffering because of her.
The judge had a previous disciplinary history. The Board found violations of Rules 1.2,
2.2, and 2.8(B) and entered into a deferred disposition agreement with the judge. If the
Board does not learn of any further violations within two years, the judge will receive an
admonition for the judge’s conduct in the OFP case. If the Board learns of further
violations within two years, the Board may seek public discipline.

[Page 11]
11

Letter(s) of Caution

• The Board has the authority to issue a letter of caution.

File no. Conduct
2024-50 The Board advised a judicial officer that it is not appropriate to tell someone appearing
before the Court that they should smile more, or that they would be much prettier if they
smile. To suggest that a person smile, especially in a stressful setting such as a hearing, is
condescending and dismissive. The Board cautioned the judicial officer that such conduct
may violate Rules 1.1 (Compliance with the Law), 1.2 (Promoting Confidence in the
Judiciary), 2.2 (Impartiality and Fairness), 2.3 (Bias, Prejudice, and Harassment), and 2.8
(Decorum, Demeanor) of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
2024-49 The Board cautioned a judge that the judge’s comments and body language may show bias
after multiple witnesses reported the judge would roll their eyes and sigh during hearings,
and that such conduct could violate the following Rules of the Code of Conduct: Rule 1.2
(Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary), Rule 2.2 (Impartiality and Fairness), Rule 2.3
(Bias, Prejudice and Harassment), and Rule 2.8 (Demeanor).
2024-43 After a judge self -reported to the Board that the judge had viewed a criminal pretrial
evaluation in connection with a child protection case and, as a result, subsequently recused,
the Board cautioned the judge that initiating, permitting, or considering e x parte
communications could violate the following Rules of the Code of Judicial Conduct: Rule
1.1 (Compliance with the Law), Rule 1.2 (Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary), Rule
2.2 (Impartiality and Fairness), Rule 2.6(A) (Right to Be Heard), and Rule 2.9(A) (Ex Parte
Communications).
2024-25 During a hearing, a judge did not permit a party an opportunity to answer questions that
the judge asked of the party, and the judge had an angry and impatient tone. The Board
cautioned the judge that such conduct could violate Rules 1.1 (Compliance with the Law),
1.2 (Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary), 2.2 (Impartiality and Fairness), 2.3 (Bias,
Prejudice, and Harassment), 2.6 (Right to Be Heard), and 2.8 (Demeanor) of the Code of
Judicial Conduct.
2024-16 The Board cautioned a judge that even when an ex parte communication or independent
fact investigation provides minimal information, a short conversation or cursory research
can unknowingly influence a judge’s decision. “Ex Parte communications are prohib ited
generally because they undermine the adversary system, threaten the fairness of a
proceeding, and create an appearance of bias and partiality.” Arthur Garwin, et al.,
Annotated Model Code of Judicial Conduct 195 (3d ed. 2016). Independent investigations
by a judge also create an appearance of partiality and may provide a judge with personal
knowledge of disputed facts, which is a specific ground for judicial disqualification. Such
conduct could violate the following Rules of the Code of Judicial Conduct: Rule 1.1
(Compliance with the Law), Rule 1.2 (Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary), Rule 2.2
(Impartiality and Fairness), Rule 2.6(A) (Right to Be Heard), and Rule 2.9(A) (Ex Parte
Communications).

[Page 12]
12

File no. Conduct
2024-12 The Board cautioned a judge that internal electronic communications with court staff
involving comments about attorneys and parties appearing in court could violate
Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 1.1 (Compliance with the Law), Rule 1.2
(Promoting Confidence with the Judiciary), Rule 2.2 (Impartiality and Fairness), and Rule
2.8(A) (Decorum and Demeanor). Judges must act as leaders and set an example in their
communications with court staff. Electronic communications between a judge and court
staff that are undignified and discourteous, even if they are not made public, may violate
the Code.
2023-44 A judge failed to timely manage the judge’s workload, which potentially impacted
litigants, court staff, and justice partners. The Board cautioned the judge that failing to
timely sign documents in the judge’s signing folder could violate Rules 1.1 (Compli ance
with the Law), 1.2 (Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary), 2.5 (Competence, Diligence,
and Cooperation), and 2.7 (Responsibility to Decide) of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
2023-39 In a family law matter, one party did not appear due to an emergency. The judge granted a
continuance but went on the record. The judge gave the Guardian ad Litem a platform to
engage in ex parte communications by asking, “Is there anything that you wish to inform
the court of at this time?” The Guardian ad Litem then offered substantive information
regarding the matter. Such conduct could violate the following Rules of the Code of
Judicial Conduct: Rule 1.1 (Compliance with the Law), Rule 1.2 (Promoting Confidence
in the Judiciary), Rule 2.2 (Impartiality and Fairness), Rule 2.6(A) (Right to Be Heard),
and Rule 2.9(A) (Ex Parte Communications) of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The Board
cautioned th e judge that even when the ex parte communication provides minimal
information, and the judge does not take immediate action on the information, a short
exchange can unknowingly influence a judge’s decision.
2023-11 A judge self-reported that the judge made inappropriate comments about a candidate for
political office. The comments were made off -the-record during Zoom calendars. The
Board cautioned the judge that the comments could be interpreted to support or oppos e a
candidate for public office and could erode the public’s confidence in the independence
and impartiality of the judiciary. The Board also cautioned that in the era of virtual
hearings, judges must remain mindful that their comments may easily become public, and
that such conduct may violate Rules 1.1 (Compliance with the Law), 1.2 (Promoting
Confidence in the Judiciary), 2.8 (B) (Demeanor), and 4.1 (A) (3) (Political and Campaign
Activities of Judges) of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
2023-10 A judge self -reported that the judge used profanity while off -the-record during a Zoom
calendar. The judge was not muted, and others overheard the judge’s comments. The
Board cautioned the judge that the use of profanity is not becoming of a judicial off icer
and may violate Rules 1.1 (Compliance with the Law), 1.2 (Promoting Confidence in the
Judiciary), and 2.8 (B) (Demeanor) of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

[Page 13]
13

File no. Conduct
2023-09 The Board advised a judge that a respondent to an order for protection is entitled to testify
and present evidence; and that failing to provide a respondent with a timely opportunity to
be heard does not promote confidence in the judiciary and may call the judge’s impartiality
into question in violation of Rules 1.1 (Compliance with the Law), 1.2 (Promoting
Confidence in the Judiciary), and 2.6(A) (Right to Be Heard) of the Code of Judicial
Conduct.
2023-06 A judge held a criminal hearing to address alleged violations of the conditions of release
and the arraignment of an amended complaint without counsel present for the defendant
even though the defendant had not knowingly, voluntarily, or intelligently waived his right
to counsel. The Board cautioned the judge that the conduct could have violated Rules 1.1
(Compliance with the Law), 1.2 (Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary), 2.2 (Impartiality
and Fairness), and 2.6(A) (Right to Be Heard) of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
2022-39 Off the record, a judge used profanity in a discussion with a prosecutor in a non -joking
manner. A litigant overheard the conversation. The Board cautioned the judge that using
profanity while performing judicial or administrative duties may harm public confidence
in the judiciary, and that such conduct may violate Rules 1.1 (Compliance with the Law),
1.2 (Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary), and 2.8 (B) (Demeanor) of the Code of
Judicial Conduct.
2022-26 A judge self -reported that the judge independently researched the value of an item in
preparation for a restitution hearing, but that the judge did not rely on the research in
making a decision. The Board cautioned the judge that independent investigations abuse
the adversary process, harm public confidence in the judiciary, create an appearance of
partiality, and affect the administration of justice, and that such conduct could violated
Rule 2.9(C) of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
2021-34 The Board cautioned a judge to avoid post -hearing exchanges with only one party,
regarding the minor details of an order, because such exchanges could violate Rules 1.2
(Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary), 2.2 (Impartiality and Fairness), 2.6(A) (Right to
Be Heard), and 2.9(A) (Ex Parte Communications) of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
2021-31 The Board advised a judge that when a judge oversteps the judge’s role in settlement
negotiations, the judge’s view of the matter may be altered, and the judge may appear to
the lawyers or parties to be coercing a settlement. In addition, unconventional acts, such as
meeting with parties outside of the courthouse and personally assisting in the division of
property, could easily give rise to ex parte communications or risk the judge becoming a
witness. The Board cautioned the judge that the judge’s conduct in settlement negotiations
could violate Rules 1.1 (Compliance with the Law), 1.2 ( Promoting Confidence in the
Judiciary), 2.2 (Impartiality and Fairness), and 2.6 (B) (Right to Be Heard) of the Code of
Judicial Conduct.

[Page 14]
14

File no. Conduct
2020-08 Even after learning that an Order was a month overdue for filing, it took a judge an
additional month to file the Order. The judge and the attorneys had never dealt with the
type of case and were unfamiliar with the filing requirements. The judge had announced
the Order orally at the hearing, and the failure to timely file the Order did not affect the
administration of justice. The Board cautioned the judge that orders that are filed late could
violate Rules 1.1 (Compliance with the Law), 1.2 (Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary),
and 2.5(A) (Competence and Diligence) of the Code.
2020-02
2020-03
Two complainants alleged that during a sentencing hearing, the judge called out and
criticized the defendant’s supporters due to the content of their letters supporting the
defendant. The complainants felt unfairly maligned. The judge acknowledged that t he
judge could have chosen better words to convey the judge’s message. The Board cautioned
the judge that discourtesy and disrespectful demeanor could violate Rules 1.1 (Compliance
with the law), 1.2 (Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary), Rule 2.2. (Imp artiality and
Fairness), and 2.8(B) (Demeanor) of the Code.
2019-28 A letter of recommendation a judge wrote in 2017, on behalf of a candidate for police chief,
abused the prestige of judicial office in its tone and content. In response to the Board, the
judge recognized that the format and nature of the letter of recommendation did not comply
with Rule 1.3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
2019-26 A complainant alleged that at a hearing to modify his order for protection, instead of
hearing the motion, the judge dismissed the order for protection. As a result, the
complainant did not have the opportunity to present his motion and be heard. The judge’s
assigned calendar was overcrowded, and court administration subsequently made changes
to the calendar. The Board cautioned the judge that a failure to allow a litigant the
opportunity to be heard according to law could violate Rules 1.1 (Compliance w ith the
Law), 1.2 (Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary), and rule 2.6(A) (Ensuring the Right to
Be Heard) of the Code.
2019-09 A judge self-reported that the judge signed two letters seeking private and governmental
funding for a non-profit organization. The Board cautioned the judge to not seek private
funding for a governmental entity, nor to seek either private or governmental funding for
a non-governmental entity. Such conduct is a violation of Rules 1.3 (Avoiding Abuse of
the Prestige of Judicial Office), 3.1 (Extrajudicial Activities in General), and 3.7(A)(2)
(Participation in Educational, Religious, Charitable, Fraternal, or Civic Organizations and
Activities) of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

[Page 15]
15

File no. Conduct
2018-13 The complainant alleged that a judge initiated an ex parte discussion with a juvenile
defendant and his attorney; that the judge interrupted their private conversation; that the
judge asked them questions about their attorney -client privileged discussion; and that the
judge attempted to improperly interject himself into plea negotiations. The Board’s
investigation did not show that the judge asked questions about attorney -client privileged
communications. The Board cautioned the judge that such conduct co uld have violated
Rules 1.2 (Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary), 2.2 (Impartiality and Fairness), 2.6
(Right to Be Heard), and 2.9(A)(4) (Ex Parte Communications) of the Code of Judicial
Conduct. The Board also cautioned the judge that involvement in any future plea
negotiations should be on the record with both parties and their attorneys present. The
judge must be mindful of the Minnesota Supreme Court decision in Wheeler v. Minnesota,
No. A16-0835 (Minn. March 21, 2018).

07/11/2025