1. What are your preferred procedures regarding motion practice?
In most cases, this Court allows each litigant 15 minutes to argue dispositive and non-dispositive motions. Summary Judgment motions must be filed in compliance with the Court’s Summary Judgment Order and applicable rules.
2. What are your preferred procedures regarding hearings?
Counsel shall follow the rules of court and extend professional courtesy to all in the courtroom.
3. What do you expect the attorneys to have ready at the pretrial conference?
Counsel shall attend pretrial conferences prepared and ready to discuss the case in detail. Counsel shall participate in good faith and with the objective of reaching mutual agreement, if reasonably feasible.
4. At what point to you expect the parties to undertake ADR, if at all?
All parties, with the exception of Conciliation Court Appeals and Medical Malpractice/ Wrongful Death litigants, shall be required to participate in some form of ADR. This Court will select an ADR provider if the parties are not able to agree on one. Parties should typically participate in ADR after discovery ends and before the pretrial conference.
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.?)
In all cases, parties should discuss settlement and exchange offers as soon as it becomes reasonably feasible to do so.
6. Do you require that a person with ultimate authority to settle be present at settlement negotiations?
Yes. Under some special circumstances, however, and with prior approval of this court, the person with ultimate authority will be allowed to participate via telephone.
7. How do you expect the parties to handle discovery disputes (including calling you for a ruling during a deposition)?
All parties shall make every reasonable effort to resolve discovery disputes without this Court’s involvement. If the parties cannot resolve the discovery dispute, this Court may resolve the dispute by telephone conference. Telephone conferences can be scheduled by calling the clerk and do not necessitate filing formal motion papers. In unusual circumstances, this Court may conduct formal hearings on discovery disputes. Notices shall comply with all applicable rules in the event such a formal hearing is necessary. This Court seriously considers sanctions where a formal discovery dispute hearing is caused by a party or an attorney acting unreasonably or without good faith. Please see link to sample Scheduling Order below.
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.
Yes, in limited and unusual situations. The party seeking such phone hearing or motion should provide reasons with specificity as to why a phone hearing, as opposed to an in-court hearing, is requested; this excludes discovery disputes, which are governed by the immediately preceding answer. If necessary and only with reasonable prior request to this Court, testimony will be transcribed by this Court’s court reporter. The moving party should initiate the telephone conference by assembling all parties on line prior to calling this Court.
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)?
Counsel and court personnel shall be allowed to leave on their cell phones and pagers provided that they do not emit any audible noise or visible signal. Counsel shall be allowed to pass notes and communicate with others at the counsel table provided that these communications do not distract the proceedings. Counsel need not ask permission to approach their own witnesses. Counsel shall, however, ask permission to approach witnesses of other parties. Beverages shall be permitted provided that they do not distract the proceedings. Formal courtroom attire is required except in special circumstances. For general information about trial requirements, please see link to sample Trial Order below.
10. When, if ever, would you consider issuing sanctions, formal reprimands, holding an attorney in contempt, or reporting an attorney for unethical behavior?
In rare cases, where counsel’s behavior deviates so far from the acceptable standards of good faith and reasonableness that it warrants action. Additionally, if there are intentional, gross or repeated violations of this Court’s orders or applicable rules, this Court will consider all appropriate remedial actions.
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?
Counsel shall be allowed to communicate ex parte with this Court only if all parties authorize the communication and are aware of the nature and breadth of the communication. Communicating with this Court’s clerks shall not be deemed ex parte communications provided that the communications are limited to scheduling matters and other non-substantive logistics relating to the case.
12. What is your practice with granting continuances and under what circumstances would you consider granting one?
Requests for continuances shall be submitted in writing and are not routinely granted. Continuances may be granted in the most unforeseeable and extraordinary circumstances. Requests for continuances shall comply with the procedures set forth in relevant orders of this Court. Please see links to sample orders below.
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?
Yes, all counsel shall assume that this Court has read all memorandum and exhibits in connection with oral argument. This Court will actively participate in oral arguments and will expect counsel to engage in a dialog with this Court.
14. What do you consider to be the basic requirements of good oral argument (including the amount of time appropriate for oral argument)?
An oral argument should be well organized. Counsel should plan to discuss the most significant and/or difficult issues in the case. Counsel should not waste time reciting their brief, but instead counsel should address the main issues in the case and attempt to resolve them by applying the law to the facts. Counsel should be prepared to cite all relevant statutes and cases as well as any exhibits. Generally, oral arguments last about 30 minutes. Counsel should expect that much of the hearing will consist of questions, answers and, with some frequency, active exchanges between counsel and this Court.
15. What preferences do you have for jury trials? How do you prefer voir dire to be conducted?
This Court will conduct a general voir dire of the jury panel lasting approximately one hour. At that time, the Court will allow counsel to voir dire the panel. This Court typically uses the "strike at the end" method. Counsel shall submit proposed jury instructions, verdict forms, exhibit lists and witness lists prior to trial. Counsel are encouraged to submit proposed jury instructions by diskette in Word format. Counsel shall comply with all orders of this Court, including without limitation, the Trial Order.
|
Back to Top
|
|
Tony Leung
Originally published in the January/February 1995 issue.
Author: Jeffrey Eng
Portions of this profile were redacted on request of the Judge.
Tony N. Leung has been a part of the Twin Cities community since his emigration from Hong Kong to Minneapolis in the 1960s. Leung spent his formative years in Minneapolis, graduating from Minneapolis West High School in 1978. From there, Leung traveled to the East Coast to attend Yale University in New Haven, Conn., graduating cum laude with a degree in political science.
Upon receiving his law degree from New York University in 1985, Leung returned to Minneapolis to work as an associate at the law firm of Faegre & Benson. He practiced primarily in the area of real estate during his tenure at Faegre & Benson, focusing in the area of complex commercial trans-actions. His areas of expertise included examination of title, land use and zoning issues, acquisitions, leasing, development of strip malls, residential and commercial projects, construction contracts, construction and permanent financing, foreclosures, and environmental issues. In addition to these specific areas, Leung has handled issues involving the general counseling of corporate clients and the formulation of unique commercial transactions. For instance, Leung provided legal representation on behalf of Burnet Realty, Inc., as title sponsor of the Burnet Senior Classic, a Professional Golf Association senior event held at the Bunker Hills Golf Course in Coon Rapids the past two years.
Leung has also devoted a good share of his time to various bar association activities including service on the Nominations Committee of the Hennepin County Bar Association, on the Minnesota State Board of Abstracters, on the board of directors of the Minnesota Chapter of the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association, in the Minnesota Minority Lawyers Association, and as treasurer of the Twin Cities Committee on Minority Lawyers in Large Law Firms. Leung’s involvement with the Twin Cities Committee led him to take part in the organization and execution of the first minority job conference in the Twin Cities for law students. This job conference has since been perpetuated through the continuing efforts of the Twin Cities Committee and the Hennepin County Bar Association.
Leung’s commitment to public service, however, extends beyond the profession. His activities support the many educational, business, community, and artistic endeavors of others. Currently, Leung chairs the Yale Alumni Schools Committee in Minneapolis. As chairperson of this committee, Leung interviews high school students and encourages them to consider Yale University for their advanced education. He is also a member of the Kiwanis Club of Downtown Minneapolis and served on its board from 1991 through 1993. Likewise, Leung served as executive vice president of the Minnesota Chapter of the Organization of Chinese Americans (OCA). The OCA promotes the involvement of Chinese and other Asian Americans in the community while also educating the public about the democratic political process.
Paul Gam, current president of the OCA, worked with Leung on many community projects over the past several years. "Tony is invaluable as a strategist, policy maker, source of substantive information, and counselor," remarked Gam. One of Leung and the organization’s more notable projects was the Asian Leaders Forum which took place in April 1994. The forum brought together the heads of approximately 14 local law enforcement agencies with numerous Asian community leaders (including representatives from the Vietnamese, Laotian, Hmong, Korean, and Chinese communities) to help break down any communication barriers which may have existed between the two groups. Leung and the organization also participated heavily in projects which educated employees and employers of their rights and responsibilities under the Immigration Reform and Control Act and projects which addressed voter registration and turnout. In recognition of the organization’s efforts in the community, the Minnesota OCA chapter received the national OCA’s 1994 Best Chapter Award.
Finally, as an active supporter of the arts, Leung currently serves on the board of directors of the MacPhail School of Music and the Playwright Center. The MacPhail School of Music is a community arts school which provides music, theater, and creative arts classes to children. Similarly, the Playwright Center serves as an overall resource center for playwrights by administering grants, running workshops, and organizing readings. Both groups are known for their support of young talent and progressive works.
Like many before him, Leung had a difficult choice to make in deciding whether or not to leave private practice to sit on the Hennepin County bench. For Leung, it was a particularly difficult decision because he enjoyed the practice of law at Faegre & Benson and had just been made an equity partner of the firm in early 1994. Being able to work with and develop close relationships with colleagues such as Tom Crosby made the decision to leave private practice that much more difficult. At the relatively young age of 34, Leung could have had many successful years of legal practice to look forward to. Nevertheless, he made the decision to give up his personal privacy and private law practice in order to directly serve the community.
Tom Crosby of Faegre & Benson commented on Leung’s departure from the firm. "Tony’s work at Faegre and Benson, while it specialized in the real estate area, involved many other disciplines. Tony always displayed a willingness and ability to take on challenges in new areas of law." Crosby added, "Both colleagues and clients enjoyed working with Leung, his ability, spirit, and sense of humor. Tony was made a partner of the firm in early 1994 and we had looked forward to his long and successful career at the firm."
On Aug. 19, 1994, Leung was formally sworn in as a Hennepin County District Court judge. It was a memorable occasion for Leung because of the new challenges he would soon face. Although Tony N. Leung bears the distinction of becoming Minnesota’s first Asian-American judge, it is a distinction which he rarely highlights. Instead, Leung continues to focus his energies on being a fair and compassionate judge.
|
Back to Top
|