Tip: Cloudy Sunshine
Litigation under the Minnesota “sunshine” laws — the Government Data Practices Act and the Open Meeting Law — may have become more difficult for claimants due to a ruling late in 2004 by the Minnesota Supreme Court.  Ironically, the ruling came in litigation in which the Data Practices challengers actually prevailed.  In Star Tribune Co. v. University of Minnesota Board of Regents, 683 N.W.2d 274 (Minn. 2004), a group of media claimants succeeded in requiring the University of Minnesota to disclose the identities of candidates who were interviewed by the Board of Regents for a vacancy in the position of University president.  Claiming “autonomy” under Article 13, §3, of the State Constitution, the University refused to disclose the names of other candidates who were interviewed for the opening.  The Supreme Court ruled that the identities of all the interviewees must be disclosed under both the Data Practices Act and the Open Meeting Law. 

But in a subsequent unpublished order, the Supreme Court rejected a claim of more than $300,000 in attorney’s fees by the successful challengers, because the statutory language, under §13.08 of the Data Practices Act is permissive, rather than mandatory, as it is in many other fee-shifting measures. On the merits, fees were not awarded because the University had a “reasonable” basis for refusing disclosure.  As a result, “sunshine” litigants may be unable to recover attorney’s fees in successful Data Practices or Open Meeting litigation unless the action of the public entity in refusing disclosure — or in making improper divulgences — was blatantly illegal or improper. 
Marshall H. Tanick
Mansfield Tanick & Cohen, PA, Minneapolis

Tip:“Spinning” in Argument
When a judge, trial or appellate, asks a question, always answer the question first and then give any needed context.  I often find myself impatient to get the answer I was looking for, and worse, distracted by the attempts to spin the (bad?) fact or law before identifying the object being spun.  Clients rarely want to watch a lawyer struggle with the judge over that approach.  I suspect that the judges who sit quietly are little different in that respect from those of us who speak up.
Hon. Stephen C. Aldrich
4th Judicial District, Mpls
Stephen.Aldrich@courts.state.mn.us

Tip:Criminal Proceeding?
Three tips to help your client’s future:  1) End the case “in the client’s favor.” Seek dismissal; pretrial diversion and “de no” program (no plea of guilty); or continuance for dismissal (again no plea of guilty). While these appear on a records check, courts often grant petitions to expunge these cases. Avoid guilty pleas; discharges; or stays of imposition followed by a vacated plea and dismissal. These are “convictions” under Chapter 609A and are difficult to expunge, especially from the BCA.  Since most landlords and employers check the BCA, a “conviction” risks preventing your client from obtaining good employment or housing for the indefinite future.

2) Assist the client in expunging any criminal records. (Chapter 609A.) Tips can be found on http://www.volunteerlawyersnetwork.org/member_resources.htm. As long as your client has a criminal record, even a dismissal or acquittal, he or she will have problems obtaining good employment or housing.

3) Avoid future DHS problems. If your client works for or plans to work for a DHS-licensed facility (e.g., as a nurse, nurse’s assistant, personal care attendant, etc.), know that the client who ends with one of certain offenses on his or her record may never work in that field again. See MN Laws Chapter 245C, MN Stats §§144.057 and 241.021. Either keep such a case from appearing on your client’s record or prepare your client for the consequences.
Martha Delaney, Clinics Director
Volunteer Lawyers Network, Minneapolis
Martha@hcba.org

Trap: Divorce and Death
When a party to a marriage that has not been dissolved dies, the marriage relation “no longer exists” and, as a result, any then-pending dissolution proceeding abates.  Simply stated, you can’t “divorce a dead person.” Further, a district court has no jurisdiction to enter judgment, unless the judicial act is complete and “all that remains to be done is for the clerk to enter the judgment in the judgment book as directed.”  Finally, the surviving spouse can not both enforce her elective share rights and (emphasis added) have judgment entered on a mediated property settlement that was negotiated while her husband was alive but was never reduced to a property settlement agreement or approved by a district court.  This was the ruling in In re the Marriage of Erwin Harold Rettke, et al., A04-1507, (Minn. App. 06/07/05).
William Forsberg
Parsinen Kaplan Rosberg & Gotlieb, Minneapolis
wforsberg@parlaw.com