Hennepin County Bar Association

Hennepin County
Bar Association

Judge Miller

Meet the Judges How District Court Works Judicial Elections

Judge Laurie J. Miller

Born:

Education:		1981: J.D., Yale Law School 1978: A.B., Stanford University, with distinction, Phi Beta Kappa

Recent Career:		1989-2008: Attorney and shareholder, Fredrikson & Byron, Minneapolis, Minnesota 1986-1989: Associate attorney, Dunlap, Keith, Finseth, Berndt & Sandberg, Rochester, Minnesota 1983-1986: Associate attorney, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, San Francisco, California 1981-1983: Staff law clerk assigned to Judges Myron H. Bright and Richard S. Arnold, Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, St. Louis, Missouri

Elevated to Bench:		Appointed in 2008

Current Assignments:		Family

More information on this Judge is available from the District Court Website


	Read Profile from
	Published in January 2009

The Judge's Family Courtroom Procedures and Advice

Back to Top

1. Do you have any prior personal or professional experience in family court?

No.

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)?

Hennepin County Family Court has standard procedures for emergency and ex parte motions, which I follow. If the motion is in a case that is just being filed, it will need to include a request to the signing judge for emergency opening of a file to enable a judge to be assigned. If I am the assigned judge, I will review the papers, and one of the first things I will look for is whether the other side has been notified. If no notification has been provided, I will often grant an emergency hearing and require notice to be provided as soon as reasonably practicable. It is a rare case in which I will grant substantive relief without having the opportunity to hear from both sides.

3. How are you dividing the workload between judges and referees, in terms of types of cases and issues?

In Hennepin County, individual judges do not get to decide this; the division is standardized on a court-wide basis. Under our current arrangement in Family Court, judges and referees carry similar caseloads, with two exceptions: the referees are primarily responsible for hearing the County Attorney IV-D and paternity calendars, and the judges are primarily responsible for hearing the Domestic Abuse/Order for Protection calendars. Aside from that general division, judges and referees regularly hear all types of cases and issues in Family Court.

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?

In Hennepin County, all judicial officers in Family Court use initial case management conferences for newly-filed cases. When a case is filed, an ICMC will be scheduled, and both attorneys (if retained) and clients are expected to attend. I conduct the conferences. Since the conference is the first time I meet the parties and counsel, I rarely hear motions or rule on substantive issues. I use the conference as an opportunity to gauge what issues remain unresolved between the parties, to discuss possible alternative dispute resolution methods, and to develop a game plan for getting the parties through the legal process in the manner that appears to be most effective, efficient, and economical for their particular circumstances.

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?

We have many forms of ADR available for parties in Family Court, and I encourage parties to consider using one or more of them in every case where it is appropriate. Sometimes it may not be appropriate, as when one party has an Order for Protection in place against another party. But in a significant majority of our cases, we are able to refer parties to some form of ADR, such as Social Early Neutral Evaluation, Financial Early Neutral Evaluation, mediation, or the Settlement Program, and the parties can negotiate a resolution of their issues without need for a full-blown trial.

7. Are you imposing any timelines on Family Court Services for completion of their studies?

Family Court Services currently takes four months to complete a custody and parenting time evaluation, and three months to complete an investigation by a Guardian ad Litem. Based on the understanding that these time frames have been developed in order to ensure that the evaluators have sufficient time to complete a thorough evaluation, I do not impose shorter timelines on Family Court Services. Only in rare cases will I request a shorter turn-around time, and when it is necessary to address an urgent situation. On occasion, where I need a quicker turn-around from a Guardian ad Litem, I will request an oral report at the review hearing as opposed to a written report in advance of the hearing.

8. What criteria are you using for the appointment of a guardian ad litem, and is it any different for private guardians ad litem or guardians ad litem from the panel?

I have not yet had occasion to appoint a private guardian ad litem, but have appointed all guardians in cases before me from the panel. In addition to the mandatory appointments required by law, I will appoint guardians on a permissive basis when there is an unusual situation between the parties, or when there is need to provide the parties with assistance with parenting time, reunification, or other issues that the parties have not and will not be able to resolve without help. Guardians are selected from the panel by district court administration based on the specific situation between the parties.

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 for a day certain. I ask parties at the time of trial-setting what amount of trial time they expect to require, and I advise them that they will be expected to complete the trial within the time set aside for them, based upon their estimate.

10. Are you enforcing the timelines for motion paper filings, and if a violation occurs, what is your typical sanction?

I expect parties to follow the motion filing timelines as set forth in the rules. Sanctions for violations will depend upon the situation. If the parties agree to a shortened briefing schedule, I will usually go along with their agreement. If one party objects that insufficient time was allowed for responsive papers, I will often allow that party to make a post-hearing submission. Depending on the circumstances, I may also consider disregarding a late submission, awarding attorney’s fees, or other sanctions tailored to the situation.

11. What are your expectations of pro se litigants?

I expect pro se litigants to behave respectfully in court, and to do their best to understand and comply with our court procedures. I do not expect them to have the knowledge or expertise that a lawyer would have, but I do expect them to make use of the many resources available here to help them do things correctly. I will often refer them to the self-help center for assistance with documents and navigating the court system.

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?

I have not been in Family Court long enough to have developed a policy on how to deter repetitive frivolous motions, largely because I have not yet seen many such motions (which is a good thing).

13. Do you have any timelines that you enforce in moving a case from case management conference to temporary relief hearing to trial?

I do not have any specific timelines that I enforce. I try to manage my cases actively to ensure that they keep moving forward expeditiously, with the expectation that the vast majority of them will be resolved within one year after filing.

14. Will you receive correspondence sent directly to the court from a neutral expert in the case?

I regularly receive reports from family court services personnel, such as early neutral evaluators, custody evaluators, and guardians ad litem that I have appointed to address specific issues in cases. I typically do not receive reports directly from private experts, except as exhibits to submissions by the parties. At trial, I will accept expert reports in lieu of direct testimony, by agreement of the parties.

15. How would you characterize your willingness to award attorneys’ fees as a sanction in a case?

I am never eager to award attorney’s fees as a sanction, but I am willing to do so when I determine that the evidence supports a finding that one party has unreasonably contributed to the length or expense of the proceeding.

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?

I do not usually become involved in settlement discussions unless the parties request it. If I am asked what I would do on a particular issue, and if I decide that giving preliminary feedback may help the parties move forward in their negotiations, I may give a tentative response, while making clear that my ultimate decision may be different, since I have not yet heard all the evidence or legal arguments that may be advanced at trial.

18. Will you allow parties to have motions heard at pre-trial conferences?

Not usually. In my view, the purpose of a pre-trial conference is to identify the issues remaining for trial, to explore whether all possibilities of settling those issues have been exhausted, and if settlement is not feasible, to set the case for trial. Motions generally should be heard before the pre-trial conference. If a party wishes to raise a belated motion at the pre-trial, I may allow the date to be used for the motion hearing and continue the pre-trial to a later date.

Judicial Profile from The Hennepin Lawyer (78:1:22)

Laurie J. Miller
Originally published in the January 2009 issue.
Author: Amy Amundson

Reaching a milestone birthday, Laurie Miller decided it was time to take a chance on her aspiration to become a judge. She wanted to move from in front of the bench to behind the bench, and she applied for a judicial opening in the Hennepin County District Court.

After numerous interviews, Miller was informed that on Feb. 5, 2008 she would receive a call telling her one way or another if her aspirations were to become reality. On that day she was leaving work and walking down the hall of her office on the 40th floor when her cell phone rang. She answered it and, of course, the reception was bad, but she heard enough broken words to know it was Gov. Tim Pawlenty. It was a situation where anyone would hope to not have to say, "Can you hear me now?" Miller politely asked Governor Pawlenty to call her back on her office line where she heard clearly the exciting news that she was selected for appointment to the Hennepin County District Court; the announcement was made public the next day.

A snapshot of Miller’s life before law and Minnesota is informative and interesting, shedding light on the woman now behind the bench; her cross-country path is not one that has been frequently traveled.

Miller was born and raised in the extreme northeastern corner of Montana, in the small town of Dagmar. She noted, "It is almost to Canada and close to North Dakota." She grew up on the family farm that was homesteaded by her grandfather, and attended an elementary school with only two teachers. She was one of five students that graduated from her eighth grade class, and her high school graduating class consisted of only 24 students.

Miller left Dagmar and headed to a new state, a new city, and a new environment at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California. Miller had not visited Stanford before enrolling. She traveled there for the first time as an incoming freshman because, she explained, "It was a time when people did not go visit colleges." Her mother simply booked a flight for her, she packed up her belongings, and she embarked on her college experience with "all her worldly possessions in one suitcase."

In 1978, Miller graduated from Stanford with a degree in human biology; a unique program with a mission to provide an interdisciplinary approach to understanding the human being from biological, behavioral, social, and cultural perspectives. She clarified: "It produced as many lawyers as doctors" because the primary focus was on public policy. Miller had not committed to any particular career path after four years of college, and because she "always liked to read, write, and analyze things," she went straight into law school. Somewhere close? No, again Miller was willing to try an entirely new location. This time she ventured to the east coast, to New Haven, Connecticut, to enter Yale Law School, again embracing a new state, a new city, and a new environment. In 1981, Miller obtained her juris doctorate degree, becoming the first lawyer in her family.

With a first-class legal education, Miller obtained an Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals law clerk position from 1981 to 1983 working for Judges Myron H. Bright and Richard S. Arnold in St. Louis, Missouri. While supporting these judges, Miller formed her belief that judges have the "best job on the face of the earth." She recalls the judges were highly intuitive about the cases before them. Miller explained, "It was interesting to me how my judges were able to read between the lines and actually see and understand that there was a deeper issue that was not written on the paper." Miller credits this ability to the fact that the judges had their own personal experiences as lawyers before coming to the bench. Her judicial clerkship experience planted a seed of "judicial aspirations" in her mind, but she knew she needed and wanted her own experiences as a lawyer in and out of the courtroom before considering a job behind the bench.

In 1983, following her clerkship, Miller accepted an attorney position at the Orrick, Herrington and Sutcliffe law firm in San Francisco, California. While in San Francisco at the Orrick firm, Miller learned "the trade of litigation" as she litigated cases on employment, securities, and general business matters. In 1986, her husband was beginning his medical residency in Rochester, and so they moved to Minnesota. She took a position at the then-largest law firm in Rochester, the Dunlap and Seeger (known then as Dunlap, Keith, Finseth, Berndt and Sandberg).

At Dunlap, Miller learned the "craft of being a trial lawyer." She speaks highly of her trial lawyer mentor Bob Dunlap, whom Miller says showed her how to be a master of the courtroom. She learned from him that saying less is more, because Dunlap was very adept at figuring out how to make his point while saying very little. She learned to tell the whole story, because Dunlap had a way of paring things down to the bone and leaving no stone unturned. Miller also learned to avoid pointless questions, because Dunlap was the master of the five-minute cross-examination. She would watch the jury when Dunlap stood up and she remembers that "the jury would listen because they knew what he was going to say was relevant and important. He did not needlessly repeat anything." Miller strove to incorporate and use these skills in her civil trial practice. She believes, "It takes a lot of courage as trial lawyers to not say things, but, if you have good instinct, it can be remarkably effective."

In 1989, Miller and her family relocated to Minneapolis and she took a position at the Fredrikson & Byron law firm. While at Fredrikson, Miller handled a wide variety of commercial litigation matters including contract, fraud, and insurance coverage disputes. Her trial court expertise included land use litigation, property tax litigation, health-care- related litigation, the open meeting law, and the data practices act. She also devoted time to writing and arguing appeals.

Throughout her legal career, Miller has been actively involved in volunteer and professional activities. She volunteered for the Housing Preservation Project board of directors, and she volunteers for Children’s Law Center of Minnesota and Minnesota Advocates for Human Rights. When not working, Miller and her husband, Scott Sakaguchi, are active in the lives of their three children, ages 14, 12, and 7. Miller likes to read, listen to classical music, and attend operas when she has leisure time.

Along with other new judicial appointments, Miller began work on the bench with a three-week orientation. She believes the Hennepin County District Court provides ample mentoring, noting, "I was given a four-foot stack of manuals to read for instructions and a mentor to call anytime day or night." Miller feels well-supported as she embarks on her new voyage. Miller, like all first-time appointments, has been on a 100 percent criminal rotation, and finds it an educational experience for someone with a civil background. She has already presided over a handful of jury trials and it is clear that there are differences between civil trial preparation and criminal trial preparation.

Asked how she likes her job as a judge, she responds enthusiastically that she loves it, and that there is a constant challenge of learning a variety of new things along with the mission of providing justice. "What’s not to like about a job like that."

Legal Notice

Hennepin County Bar Association. 600 Nicollet Mall #390,Minneapolis, MN 55402. Phone: 612-752-6600.