| |
|
Judge Stephen C. Aldrich
|
| |
|
|
| Born: |
|
1941 |
| |
|
|
| Education: |
|
1971 JD University of Minnesota
1963-65 Union Theological Seminary
1963 BA Grinnell College |
| |
|
|
| Recent Career: |
|
1997 Judge, Hennepin County District Court
1975-97 Private Practice, Aldrich Law Offices
1973-75 Assistant City Attorney, City of St. Paul
1972-73 Assistant Senate Counsel, Minnesota State Senate
1971-72 Law Clerk, Hon. Philip Neville, U.S. District Court for
the District of Minnesota
|
| |
|
|
| Elevated to Bench: |
|
Elected in 1996 and 2002. |
| |
|
|
Previous Assignments:
|
|
1997
1998-2001
2002
2003
2004 - 2006
2007 - present |
Criminal Division
Criminal Division and Family Division
Family Division
Family Division and Civil Block
Family Court, Criminal, and Civil Block (1/2 Civil)
Civil (Full Block) and Criminal |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
Current Assignments:
|
|
Family
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
More information on this Judge is available from the District Court Website
|
| |
| |
| |
|
| The Judge's Family Courtroom Procedures and Advice |
Back to Top
|
|
1. Do you have any prior personal or professional experience in family court?
Practiced family law from 1975 – 1997, growing from 25% to about 90% of my practice over the years. Fellow of American Academy of Matrimonial Laywers, Minnesota Chapter, from 1981 – 2007. Fellow of Collaborative Law Institute from early 1990’s to 1997. Frequent teacher of Family Law and other subjects to Continuing Legal education courses since 1981. Author of Trials Chapter of Custody Desk Book, MinnCLE. Author of Chapter on “Maintaining Judicial Control” in Civil Desk Book to be published by MinnCLE in late winter, 2010.
2. What procedures are you following for emergency and/or ex parte motions (by phone or in person, representations as to efforts to notify the other side, go to the signing judge or a blocked judge)?
Because my hearing is diminished, I avoid telephone conferences except short ones and those necessary because a party is not local. As to ex parte requests, I generally set a hearing out a week and make sure the moving party, at the very minimum, mails the motion the day I sign it. Depending on the circumstances alleged, I may or may not grant the ex parte relief requested, but always the minimum necessary to insure safety and to prevent fleeing with the children.
3. How are you dividing the workload between judges and referees, in terms of types of cases and issues?
Judges and Referees in Family Court handle similar caseloads on private calendars with the Judges routinely countersigning the Referees orders. Referees hear most cases related to enforcement of child support. Judges hear custody matters where the parties are unmarried and contempt motions.
5. Are you using case management conferences, and if so, when in the process are they scheduled, who is present, who is conducting them (judge or referee), and are motions allowed to be considered?
Initial case management conferences are critical in family court. As a policy, the conferences are scheduled to occur within 3 weeks of filing the summons and petition. I require the parties and counsel, if present, to participate and everyone must be present in the courtroom. Unless the parties consent, or a record is made, these proceedings are closed to the public. I use the conference both as a case planning tool but also a chance to give the parties my frank opinion of their case.
Every appearance before me on any matter involves settlement considerations and case planning.
6. Are you using and mandating any ADR, specifically including the settlement/arbitration program, judicial case management, early neutral evaluations, mediation, arbitration, or trials by private magistrates? What are the consequences of failing to do some type of ADR?
On any dissolution proceeding, prior to an evidentiary hearing, everyone that comes before me does some form of ADR. If the parties are amicable and feel settlement is possible, I will delay ADR until later in the process at their request. Otherwise, I typically encourage social early neutral and/or financial early neutral evaluations. I also encourage mediation to the extent it is appropriate. Parties who have tried Collaborative Divorce without success will generally not be sent to ADR unless the court believes that a late neutral evaluation would make settlement more likely.
7. Are you imposing any timelines on Family Court Services for completion of their studies?
The family court bench has a standing policy with regard to FCS’s timelines. I generally follow these unless the circumstances require otherwise.
8. What criterion are you using for the appointment of guardian ad litem, and is it any different for private guardians ad litem or guardians ad litem from the panel?
Again, the family court bench has a policy that we use the court approved guardians. If the parties request a guardian, if there is abuse involved, or if the parents cannot get along and the child(ren) need it, I do not hesitate to appoint one.
9. Are you continuing to schedule trials on a day certain basis, or are you scheduling several trials at the same time for week certain consideration?
I schedule trials on a day certain basis. However, I will not schedule a trial before I have at least one pre-trial conference with the parties. The pre-trial is used to narrow the issues and set the expectations for how I handle the hearings.
10. Are you enforcing the timelines for motion paper filings, and if a violation occurs, what is your typical sanction?
A party needs the appropriate time to respond to a motion. If the papers are not timely filed, and a party objects, I will decide without the late papers, if a good decision can be made. If not, I will reschedule the hearing or give the other party opportunity to respond before . Sanctions and/or rescheduling depends on what the motion is, whether the parties are represented by counsel, and the timing of the filings, and whether the late filing is occasioned by events since the original papers were filed. Sanctions range from frowns to fines, depending upon the circumstances.
11. What are your expectations of pro se litigants?
Pro se litigants are held to the same standards as attorneys. That being said, I will typically grant them slightly more leeway depending on the circumstances. I will also assume a bit more of a role of European style magistrate in making sure I get the facts needed to make a good decision for children.
12. Do you have any policies or practices for controlling parties who continue to bring frivolous motions in the same case time and time again?
Not frequently a problem, but when called for, I will set specific circumstances that must exist before hearin a new motion. The other possibility, in extreme cases, is a fine or loss of access.
13. Do you have any timelines that you enforce in moving a case from case management conference to temporary relief hearing to trial?
I will typically use the case management conference as an informal temporary relief hearing, if the parties are requesting temporary relief. If necessary, a hearing can be scheduled. On rare occasions, where there is great financial control inequality, I have sua sponte ordered temporary attorney fees at an ICMC, subject to review at a temporary hearing.
14. Will you receive correspondence sent directly to the court from a neutral expert in the case?
Yes, if the parties agree and/or I find it necessary for a third-party neutral’s opinion. Of course, the communication must include the parties or their lawyers unless a specific decision about in camera review is made.
15. How would you characterize your willingness to award attorneys’ fees as a sanction in a case?
In family court, I award attorneys fees in cases where the parties’ incomes are widely divergent. In a situation other than this, fees are one of many sanctions available to control client behavior. See chapter on “Maintaining Judicial Control” in MinnCLE Civil Desk Book, available in late winter, 2010.
16. What is your level of involvement in settlement discussions, and will you tell the parties what you would do in the case if the issue were then before you for decision?
Unless the parties and/or counsel object or do not need me, I am heavily involved in settlement discussions. I will typically give them an idea of what I would do with the information I have at the time. This, of course, is subject to change at trial after more information is submitted. In some cases, I will ask the parties and their lawyers to waive any appeal rights that would arise from my opining in a settlement process. More often, I will give examples of cases I have decided or will point out who has the apparent high ground on given issues in settlement discussions.
17. Will you allow parties to have motions heard at pre-trial conferences?
On an informal basis, I may issue temporary orders depending on the circumstances. If an party asks to have a motion heard at the pre-trial, I will permit it to be heard on two conditions: the motion papers are not inflammatory and I think that deciding the motion may help settlement. Rarely is anything other than a temporary order required because my trials are scheduled within weeks after the pre-trial conference.
|
|
| |

|
| |
Read Profile from

|
| |
Published in
February 1997
|
| |
|
| |

|
| |
|
|
|
|
| The Judge's Civil Courtroom Procedures and Advice |
Back to Top
|
|
Regarding courtroom conduct, Judge Aldrich submitted the following to be included here. This list was written by an extern of Judge Aldrich.
Top 10 Things I Learned in My Judicial Externship
10. Attorneys must know their files inside and out. The judge will. (Even if it’s his clerks who tell him what’s in there).
9. Interrupting the judge under any circumstance is a bad idea.
8. OFPs, ICMCs, J and Ds, PTMHs, DAs, UAs, PMs, GMs, DACs and IPSs are all real things. Learning to speak in acronyms is important if you are a law clerk and if you are a family or criminal attorney.
7. Sloppy work is obvious to everyone, including the client.
6. Learning the rules of evidence and civil procedure is absolutely essential to success in the courtroom.
5. It is important not to get on the clerks’ bad side. Filing things properly and on time is a very, very good thing.
4. Attorneys and judges alike need the ability to “roll with the punches.”
3. Attorneys should strive to keep the client’s interests in mind at all times, even if the attorneys loathe each other.
2. Courtroom procedure is best understood by observing real judges, real parties, real attorneys, and real clients, rather than listening to professors’ “war stories” and reading cases. (In other words, I can’t quantify what I have learned in a top 10 list, but suffice it to say, this was an incredibly effective way to learn).
1. I never, ever want to get a divorce. Ever.
1. What are your preferred procedures regarding motion practice? a. Notify clerks ASAP when motion time will not be needed.
b. Lawyers may always proceed by less formal procedure when there is agreement.
c. Submit a proposed order as part of your motion, every time. It is efficient to make draft order an attachment to the Notice of Motion which may say, "Petitioner/Respondent moves the court to adopt the attached proposed order."
2. What are your preferred procedures regarding hearings?
a. Don't be boring.
b. State what you want by way of a result first, then give me the facts and procedural posture.
3. What do you expect the attorneys to have ready at the pretrial conference?
a. Balance sheet of assets and proposed division.
b. Copies of their formal written offers of complete settlement.
c. See the PreTrial Conference Order that is sent in every case.
4. At what point to you expect the parties to undertake ADR, if at all?
At the point where facts are sufficiently established that the primary problem is the meaning of the facts.
5. At what point, if any, do you encourage the parties to settle or to exchange settlement offers/demands? Does that vary by type of case (personal injury, family, criminal, etc.?)
a. At any time in the case where the facts are sufficiently stable to permit enlightened decisions by the parties and attorneys.
b. As to money questions, a party and lawyer should always be able to say what amount of money in what form would make further discovery unnecessary, even if the demand is deemed way too high to be accepted.
6. Do you require that a person with ultimate authority to settle be present at settlement negotiations?
a. Yes, at least at the pre-trial
b. Exceptions may be made where travel costs are prohibitive in a particular families' economy.
7. How do you expect the parties to handle discovery disputes (including calling you for a ruling during a deposition)?
a. Reasonably. When in doubt, disclose, seek a protection order if needed, and argue the meaning of the disclosures.
b. For discovery motions, I always want to know if there was the discovery conference required by the Rules. If not, why not? Also, most discovery motions can be done by chambers or phone conference rather than more expensive, formal motions. If there is to be a phone conference, copies of the correspondence exchanged about discovery is helpful to submitted ahead of the call.
8. Do you conduct hearings and motions by phone? If so, please describe the procedure you would like attorneys to use to do so, including how testimony is to be transcribed and who puts the teleconference together.
a. Rarely, because of my bad hearing. I will do phone conferences by agreement for simple issues or where the lawyers have submitted letters in advance. I will permit pro se parties who are at long distance to attend by phone if possible and money is limited. My other use for telephone hearings is where an attorney is at great distance from the court.
b. Where both attorneys are near the court, chambers conferences or formal motion hearings are better
9. Do you have any preferences for courtroom decorum (including but not limited to cell phones, pagers, passing notes, communicating with others at counsel table, water/beverages at counsel table, approaching the witness, courtroom attire)?
a. I expect lawyers to have their clients under control and to seek court assistance to maintain that control
b. All telephones and pagers should be on silent ring or off. No phone calls in courtroom except at court's suggestion.
c. Passing notes okay if not distractingly done.
d. There is water at the counsel table at all times and Kleenex at the bench.
e. You may approach your own witness any time if you have business there. Approaching during cross examination is with permission, which may be generally granted once the trial starts.
f. Everyone must use a microphone so that I hear. Portable microphones, hand-held and lavolier, are available for those who need to move around more or who have very soft voices.
10. When, if ever, would you consider issuing sanctions, formal reprimands, holding an attorney in contempt, or reporting an attorney for unethical behavior?
Generally, I use the lightest sanction needed to produce compliance, escalating as may be needed. I have only needed to threaten contempt on one occasion in the last five years. The Civil Benchbook of the Minnesota District Judges Association has chapters on Contempt and Contempt section was written by Bernard Boland of St. Cloud. The Other Means section was Section XXXII of the 2001 Family Law Institute by Minnesota Continuing Legal Education.
11. Under what circumstances do you accept ex parte communications from counsel? Do you consider an attorney’s communication with your clerk a potential ex parte communication?
a. Discussions of procedural matters may begin ex parte, but a better way, if there is time, is to write by e-mail with copy to opposing counsel.
b. A substantive communication to a clerk can be improper ex parte communication.
c. A letter from counsel with copies to everyone is technically not ex parte. It is an abuse of trust to e-mail a letter to the court while mailing it to opposing counsel. The better way even if a letter is sent the same way to court and counsel is to call opposing counsel to alert them to the fax, e-mail or letter being delivered.
12. What is your practice with granting continuances and under what circumstances would you consider granting one?
a. One seeking a continuance has a heavy burden, especially as a trial date nears.
b. I try to accommodate counsel's personal and professional commitments whenever possible and the schedule permits.
c. Time conflicts should be disclosed as soon as learned of.
d. If a continuance is to be granted, reasonable requests of opposing counsel to reduce or eliminate any negative impact of the continuance are granted. That may include attorney fees in proper circumstances where preparation will have to be duplicated.'
13. With respect to oral argument, do you prefer an attorney to assume you have read the supporting memorandum and exhibits and not reiterate written material?
a. I always try to let counsel know the depth to which I have reviewed the file.
b. Counsel should always insure that any fact that will drive a decision is mentioned to the court.
c. In motion hearings and final arguments, counsel should be prepared for interruptions and dialogue.
d. I rarely use written final arguments in family law cases, so counsel should plan their trials to include final arguments.
14. What do you consider to be the basic requirements of good oral argument (including the amount of time appropriate for oral argument)?
a. State what you want and why in summary form at the beginning. You will usually get five minutes before being interrupted with a question.
b. Don't argue outside the record unless agreed to by opposing counsel or invited by the court.
c. If you need more than 10 minutes to argue your case, consider scheduling the motion for longer than the usual 30 minutes.
d. Don't put anything in the record you can't remember and/or find quickly if asked about it unless you don't care what the trial court ruling is.
e. When in doubt, index and tab motion papers to insure all can find things quickly.
f,. If I have decided some point based upon the moving papers, i'll tell you at the front so that the argument may be focused on what is left.
g. Long memorandums are discouraged. Brief (5 pages or less) statements of points and authorities are encouraged. If the facts are complicated use the attachments to flesh out details and backup facts.
15. What preferences do you have for jury trials? How do you prefer voir dire to be conducted?
Not applicable to family court except in parentage cases, of which there have been none by any judicial officer since I came onto Family Court.
|
Back to Top
|
| |
|
| Judicial Profile from The Hennepin Lawyer (66:6:22) |
|
| |
|
|
Stephen C. Aldrich
Originally published in the February 1997 issue.
Author: Matthew E. Johnson
Steve Aldrich was not available for comment as this article went to press. Those who know him understand that he was not available at all. If he had been available, he would have been available for comment.
But Steve’s unavailability was not a problem. I have a large supply of Steve Aldrich comments. I also have his mother’s telephone number (she’s my paternal grandmother’s sister-in-law), and she was available for comment. She said that she recently asked Steve why he wanted to be a judge. He said, "Because I like to make decisions." She also told me that Steve was a good student as a child but that "he could have been a better student if he had worked harder."
Stephen Charles Aldrich was born on Oct. 28, 1941, in Minneapolis to George Francis and Marjorie (Belle) Shimel Aldrich. He and his family lived in south Minneapolis throughout his childhood. He graduated from Washburn High School in 1959. He attended Grinnell College in Grinnell, Iowa, graduating in 1963 with a B.A. in history. At Grinnell he met Myrna Ann Sumption, a native of Des Moines, Iowa, whom he married in 1964.
After college, Steve moved to New York City, where he attended Union Theological Seminary. As he once explained in an autobiographical sketch in our extended family’s genealogical history book:
I went to Union Seminary thinking I might be called to the ministry, attracted to it by the opportunities for counseling, creating social justice, and being on stage as teacher and leader . . . . I [later] began to see the power of words as they expressed law and public policy – and as people’s lives were changed, sometimes for the worse, by the power of the words behind government actions.
Steve initially went to Washington, D.C., for a lay internship at a church and in the office of Rep. Donald M. Fraser, who has been a friend ever since. He later worked as a budget examiner at the U.S. Bureau of the Budget (now the Office of Management and Budget), where he was responsible for reviewing the civil works portion of the budget of the Army Corps of Engineers. It was during this period that he decided to go to law school.
Steve entered law school at the University of Minnesota in 1968. He was a staff member on the Minnesota Law Review, and published a note on a Minnesota statute regulating flood plains.1 He also was active in the school’s legal aid clinic. After law school, he served for one year as a law clerk for Judge Philip Neville of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. He developed enormous respect for Judge Neville and considers him a judicial role model.
After his clerkship, Steve worked at the Senate Counsel’s office at the Minnesota State Senate. Among other things, he worked on legislation reorganizing metropolitan government in the Twin Cities. Steve then became an assistant city attorney for the city of St. Paul. He worked both on housing issues and on misdemeanor criminal cases, winning all seven jury trials during his tenure there.
Steve then decided to enter private practice as a sole practitioner:
Not knowing any better, and being encouraged by my friends who had tried it, Myrna and I opened a Ma and Pa Law Store over the Hardware Surplus store, on the corner of Bloomington Avenue and Lake Street in South Minneapolis. A commercial intersection that had lost ground to suburban expansion, it had one big attribute - the First Bloomington Lake National Bank, where my father had banked for 35 years. The bankers said they needed an attorney on the corner and put a small loan behind their words. Since Myrna had never been a legal secretary and I had never practiced law privately, it seemed natural to dive in. We did a general practice – probates, wills, divorces, personal injuries, drunk driving, bankruptcy, real estate and wet basement lawsuits. . . . [T]here was not much use on Lake Street for the securities fraud law I learned in federal court.
Steve’s practice soon began to focus on family law. He built a small law firm at that location, employing associates and law clerks until 1983, when he moved his office to downtown Minneapolis.
Throughout over 20 years in private practice, Steve has been at the center of many developments in family law. He was among the first to argue that, in determining spousal support, courts should give greater consideration to a working spouse’s financial contributions that allowed a student spouse to pursue higher education. A version of his approach eventually was adopted by the Minnesota Supreme Court.2 He appeared before the Minnesota Court of Appeals on 10 occasions.3 He once joined an amicus curiae brief filed in the Minnesota Supreme Court on behalf of the Family Law Section of the Minnesota State Bar Association.4 He helped draft and advocated for the 1985 bar-sponsored amendments to the spousal maintenance statutes. Most recently, he published a short article opposing proposed legislation to reestablish a fault-based divorce system.5 All the while, he served hundreds of clients exceedingly well.
Steve has been active in many bar organizations. In 1981 he was named a fellow of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. He long has been a teacher of continuing education courses. He has been active in the Hennepin County Bar Association and currently serves as a member of the Ethics Committee.
In Steve’s words, "The themes that fill my life and from which I draw pleasure and meaning include family, music, athletics, church, and social and community action." These themes provide a convenient way to describe Steve’s personal life.
Family. Steve’s and Myrna’s lives are more closely intertwined than most married couples as she twice has served as his secretary and legal assistant while he was in private practice. Steve once wrote, "She has a whip-quick mind, artistic sensitivity and talents, a gift with teenagers, and a loyalty that doesn’t end." They have sons Jeffrey, 31, who lives in south Minneapolis, and David, 24, who lives with his wife, Angela Bailey-Aldrich, in northeast Minneapolis, and a foster son, Shuwn McDearmon, 25, who lives in downtown Minneapolis. Steve and Myrna live on Nicollet Island.
Music. Steve once wrote, "I love to sing, to hear others sing well, alone or in a group, and I love music in almost all its forms. My earliest memories include family singing.
Athletics. For many years, Steve has organized softball and basketball teams to play in the various bar leagues. He also golfs regularly.
Church. Steve an Myrna are active members of the Mayflower Community Church.
Social and Community Action. Steve has been a volunteer in civic groups too numerous to mention, and Steve and Myrna have been involved in politics for years, both at the neighborhood and state-wide level.
Steve’s list of themes, of course, does not tell the whole story. Many other qualities spring to mind.
He is very energetic. He always seems to be in high gear. He never appears tired.
He is very gregarious. He has an unusually large capacity for meeting, getting to know, and staying in touch with other people. He knows the people of this area as if it were a small town.
He is very generous. He always has time for his family and friends. For example, when I was a recent college graduate, new to the area and looking for my first job, he suggested that we meet for lunch. We did, and then we talked for an additional two hours in his office, where he shared with me an abundance of inspiring thoughts and gave me dozens of names to call.
He is very analytical. Even trivial statements are well reasoned. He has considered the important issues of our day and (in the past, if not the present and future) has been more than willing to share his views.
I haven’t yet seen Judge Aldrich in action, but I think I have a sense for his style of judging. I have a feeling that his extensive government experience (he has served in all three branches of our federal government and, having reached his current position, all three branches of state and local government) will reveal itself in a sophisticated view of the role of the state courts in our system of government. I would guess that he will be a very active judge, questioning lawyers vigorously. I expect that, in his eyes, no case will be routine. I am confident that he will take pleasure in tackling both the difficult legal issues and the difficult factual issues that are presented to him. I believe that he will be less formal than some judges, making sure that all citizens of Hennepin County feel welcome in his courtroom. And I suspect that hearings in his courtroom will move as quickly as any in the courthouse.
As a not-so-distant relative, I may never know firsthand whether my sense is correct. I am certain, however, that you will enjoy getting to know Judge Aldrich and that he will enjoy getting to know you.
1 Note, Minnesota’s Flood Plain Management Act – State Guidance of Land Use Control, 55 Minn. L. Rev. 1163 (1971).
2 See DeLa Rosa v. DeLa Rosa, 309 N.W.2d 755, 758-59 (Minn. 1981).
3 His most significant victory in the court of appeals likely was in Coleman v. Coleman, 493 N.W.2d 133 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992), where the court affirmed Judge Bruce Hartigan’s ruling that a woman who left the state with her three children to avoid spousal and child abuse by her husband did not commit "abduction" under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, id. at 137.
4 See State of Wisconsin ex rel. Southwell v. Chamberland, 361 N.W.2d 814 (Minn. 1985).
5 Stephen C. Aldrich, Faults in Fault-Based Divorce, Bench & Bar of Minnesota, Aug. 1996, at 30.
|
Back to Top
|
| |
|
|
Back to Top
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|