In a decision handed down today, July 28, 2025, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed a ruling that reeks of institutional protectionism and selective blindness. The court refused to disqualify Judge Kevin Miller—despite undisputed evidence that his law clerk, James Morrison, had previously clerked for Judge Mark Hansen, the father of defense attorney Kirsten Hansen.
Let that sink in: the judge’s own law clerk had a professional mentoring relationship with the father of a litigant’s lawyer—one that involved years of close chambers work. That same law clerk then helped draft at least a dozen orders in the case against us. Those orders, unsurprisingly, heavily favored the defense. Yet according to the Court of Appeals, none of this creates even the appearance of impropriety.
This is justice in Minnesota: where facts don’t matter if they’re inconvenient, and where ethics rules are reinterpreted to shield insiders.
The undisputed facts
- Clerk James Morrison was the listed author of twelve orders in our civil case.
- Morrison previously clerked for Judge Mark Hansen from 2013–2016.
- Judge Hansen is the father of Kirsten Hansen, one of the main defense attorneys in our case.
- Morrison’s role and these connections were never disclosed to us.
- We only discovered the truth after summary judgment had been granted against us.
- When we filed a motion to vacate the affected orders and disqualify Judge Miller, we were denied.
Now, the Court of Appeals has affirmed that denial.
What the Court ignored
The opinion, authored by Chief Judge Frisch, does not deny that Clerk Morrison had a hand in drafting the orders. It merely asserts that we provided no “evidence” of his influence—as if the court expected us to subpoena internal drafts or depose the law clerk himself (something no litigant can do under court rules).
The Court also excused Judge Miller’s independent investigation into Morrison’s employment timeline—an investigation performed outside the record and cited during the recusal hearing. Under judicial ethics rules, judges are not supposed to independently investigate adjudicative facts. But instead of condemning this, the appellate court praised it.
Worse still, the Court relied on a declaration by Attorney Kirsten Hansen that she had “never met” Morrison or didn’t remember him. No verification. No inquiry. Just take the defense attorney at her word, and call it good.
Familiarity is not impropriety—unless it involves plaintiffs
The opinion even goes so far as to justify the situation based on the fact that Otter Tail County is a “small community.” According to the Court, connections like these are “unavoidable” and don’t require recusal. But if litigants or witnesses on the plaintiff’s side had similar ties? You can bet the defense would be screaming about bias.
This double standard is the beating heart of Minnesota’s judicial system: when insiders bend the rules, it’s “understandable.” When outsiders complain, it’s “speculative.”
No investigation. No disclosure. No justice.
The Court of Appeals refused to meaningfully grapple with the core issue: Judges are ethically responsible for their clerks, and law clerks with known prior affiliations to opposing counsel’s families must be screened or disclosed. Neither happened here. And now the appellate court has blessed that failure—setting a dangerous precedent for future litigants across the state.
If this is how Minnesota defines “no appearance of impropriety,” then the rule might as well be deleted. Because clearly, it no longer protects the public—it protects the bench.
We won’t stay silent.
This isn’t the end of our fight. Judicial misconduct, undisclosed conflicts, and systemic bias are not abstract concerns. They happen every day in Minnesota courtrooms—especially to those without power, prestige, or political protection.
This decision will be challenged. And so will the culture that enabled it.
Because if the people can’t trust the courts to disclose basic conflicts of interest, then the courts cannot be trusted.
🧾 Read the full opinion [here]
This blog post was written with the assistance of Artificial Intelligence (AI).
For additional background and AI-assisted analysis of judicial independent investigations, visit our Independent Investigations page.
🔗 For more on judicial ethics and court reform in Minnesota, visit https://justice-denied.org.