Minnesota Litigator
News & Commentary
Do not consider the blog to be a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a qualified attorney licensed in your state.
Starving People Eat Poison (v.2)
Some time ago, we pointed out the obvious (at which we are particularly adept, btw): When people get desperate, they sometimes do desperate things. And our research suggests that this is true not only of human beings but also true of lawyers (who are almost indistinguishable from people, btw). One land-mine that lies just inches […]
Return of Property Provisions in Employment Contracts
Update (July 25, 2018): It is relatively rare that we celebrate when we at Minnesota Litigator have made a bad prediction, but, in our view, today the Minnesota Supreme Court got it right, in our view, and disproved our prediction below. The practice pointer below still applies, however, even though the consequences of a lapse might not be […]
Another Botched Minnesota Haircut…
Regular Minnesota Litigator readers will recall that we have, from time to time, decried the prevalent practice of the so-called “Minnesota Haircut.” For our n00b readers, the Minnesota Haircut refers to Minnesota state and federal courts’ frequent application of sharp discounts to a prevailing party’s request for award of her lawyers’ attorneys’ fees. Lawyers submit […]
Three Strikes & You’re Out: Construing Minnesota’s Open Meeting Law
Update (July 20, 2018): This past Wednesday, the Minnesota Supreme Court had no problem affirming the Minnesota Court of Appeals, which had affirmed the district court. They all held that unhappy constituents cannot accumulate public officials’ open meeting law (OML) violations and bring a single action to oust public officials for “three OML violations.” Furthermore, constituents […]
How to Discipline a Weasel
We are often sympathetic to those caught in the expensive machinery that is the U.S. civil justice system. We might be the most sympathetic to those defendants whom we consider non-culpable because they, of course, are “haled into court” (see our 2013 post on the “weird word doctrine). They do not have any choice in the […]
A PSA re BRD: A Rare Disease Widely Suffered (Indirectly) by Trial Lawyers
Black Robe Disease (“BRD”) is a rare illness, an orphan disease, in fact. Fewer than 32,000 Americans are exposed and vulnerable at any given time. It appears to be an occupational hazard. Approximately 100% of all reported cases have the job title of “Judge,” “Referee,” “Arbitrator,” or the like. Fortunately (but to the disappointment of a few […]
Is Discrimination Without Animus or Hostility Unlawful?
Update (July 13, 2018): In the case described below, Dr. Angela Ross D.M.D. (a dentist), owner of Family Orthodontics (ironic under the circumstances), was sued by Nicole LaPoint for discrimination based on pregnancy. Dr. Ross offered Ms. Nicole LaPoint a job at Family Orthodontics, but when Dr. Ross found out that Ms. LaPoint was expecting a child […]
Critical Practice Pointer: Proprietary Email Systems, Waiver, and the Attorney-Client Privilege. WATCH OUT!
Update (April 10, 2019): Sometimes we need reminders. Sometimes our clients need repeated reminders. Update (July 11, 2018): Supplemental briefing (here and here). Apparently, the Court raised an interesting question at the hearing on the motion for a protective order regarding an employee’s attorney/client communications via the corporate servers: the application of Carpenter v. United States, […]
Minnesota Lawyers’ Annual Report Card is Out.
The Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility (OLPR) Board has issued its annual report this week and there seems to be no substantial change in the rate of identified unethical conduct among Minnesota lawyers, judging from the data in the report. That is, the data validate our sense that the vast majority of Minnesota lawyers are […]
Happy Independence Day: 2018 (Notwithstanding The Most Serious Threat to Our Democracy in Its History)
Leading up to July 4, 1776, “the unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America” (now better known as the Declaration of Independence) complained that the George III, then King of England, “sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.” And, unsurprisingly, King George III did not want […]