HCBA Logo
Hennepin County
Bar Association
Judge Robiner



 

Meet the Judges            How District Court Works           Judicial Elections 

 

Judge Susan M. Robiner

     
Born:    
     
Education:   1985       J.D., Georgetown University School Law Center
1981       B.A., magna cum laude, Carleton College
     

Recent Career:

 

2006-presnet   Judge, Hennepin County District Court
2001-2006      Leonard, Street and Deinard       
2000-2001      Sprenger and Lang
1993-2000      Leonard, Street and Deinard      

     
Elevated to Bench:   Appointed in 2006. Elected in 2008.
     
Current Assignments:

  Family
 

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

 

 

Read Profile from

 

Published in 
July 2007

   
 
 
  The Judge's Family Courtroom Procedures and Advice  

Back to Top

 

1. Do you have any prior personal or professional experience in family court?
Prior to coming to the bench, my only experience in family law was limited to providing pro bono family law services in simple dissolutions.

 

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)?
If I am the signing judge, I do not sign an ex parte motion in a case which has already been assigned to a judicial officer. Such emergency motions are handled by the judicial officer assigned to the case. If I am the assigned judge, then I review the motion very carefully to determine if the matter is truly an emergency. If there is no true emergency or if the matter can be addressed on my regular calendar promptly without a risk of prejudice, I do not sign the order. If it is a true emergency, and service attempts or genuine attempts to contact the other party are documented, I will sign the order, set it on for hearing as soon as possible, and require immediate service.

 
3. How are you dividing the workload between judges and referees, in terms of types of cases and issues?
This question is properly directed to our presiding judge.
 

 

 

That being said, ADR is often most successful when it is voluntary and persons are entitled to their day in court. So, there are no adverse consequences to failing to participate in ADR. There can in certain cases be adverse consequences if someone has agreed to participate and then fails to do so or does so clearly in bad faith.
 

 

6. Are you imposing any timelines on Family Court Services for completion of their studies?
Family Court Services attempts to complete its work as promptly as possible. While my orders do contain completion dates, they are based on the estimated timelines I receive from FCS.


7. 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?
I use county GALs exclusively and I use them when I believe they are necessary or when they are mandated by statute. I recognize that that is a vague criterion but other than mandatory appointments, the decision to appoint a GAL is very case-specific.


8. 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?
Trials are scheduled on days certain.


9. Are you enforcing the timelines for motion paper filings, and if a violation occurs, what is your typical sanction?
Yes, I enforce the timelines and have used monetary sanctions.


10. What are your expectations of pro se litigants?
Expectations are relaxed for pro se litigants on a case by case basis. Perhaps more importantly, I see my role as having an educational component with pro se litigants.


11. 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 had to use any restrictions.


12. Do you have any timelines that you enforce in moving a case from case management conference to temporary relief hearing to trial?
I have no predetermined timelines that I impose on an across the board basis. I have not found that to be necessary.  
 
 
 
13. Will you receive correspondence sent directly to the court from a neutral expert in the case?
 My answer is a bit convoluted. Family Court Services evaluations and FCS chemical dependency evaluations usually are sent to chambers directly. The parties are aware of this. As for other experts, I do not allow direct correspondence unless it is a court-appointed expert or unless the parties agree to such a procedure.
 
 
 
14. How would you characterize your willingness to award attorneys’ fees as a sanction in a case?
 I am willing to award attorneys fees but do so very sparingly. And I do not impose sanctions sua sponte and without notice.
 
 
 
15. 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 am as involved in settlement discussions as the parties and their counsel want the court to be – which varies a great deal from case to case. I will preview my view on an issue if I am asked to do so, if believe it would be helpful and if I believe I have sufficient information to express an educated opinion. I always explain to the parties that my opinion is limited to the information that I have at the time and may change if additional or different evidence is ultimately presented at trial or at a subsequent hearing.
 
 
 
16. Will you allow parties to have motions heard at pre-trial conferences?
 Yes. In fact, the pretrial conference is often the last date available to the parties to present argument on any motion before trial.
 

5. 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?
I use all of these types of ADR although trials by private magistrates and settlement/arbitration are much less common. ADR is invaluable in family court where the adversarial system is not a natural fit and I make a strong case for ADR at the initial case management conferences.
4. 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?
I am using the ICMC as are all judicial officers in the 4th Judicial District. The ICMC occurs within 3 weeks of the filing of the petition. In our district, the ICMC is conducted by the assigned judicial officer. Motions are not considered unless there is some emergency issue – which is highly unusual. That being said, I occasionally do impose temporary support or parenting time when I have adequate information, or the parties agree because it is so much more cost-effective and resource sensitive to avoid a temporary motion hearing.
 
 
   
 
  Judicial Profile from The Hennepin Lawyer  (76:7:16)  
   

Susan M. Robiner
Originally published in the July 2007 issue.
Author: Marlene Garvis

Susan M. Robiner realized her dream of becoming a judge on July 17, 2006.  It was on this date that Gov. Tim Pawlenty announced her appointment to the Hennepin County District Court bench.  In so doing, he remarked that “Susan has a reputation as a smart and successful attorney in a complex area of law who has risen to leadership positions within her law firm” and that “she also has a demonstrated commitment to public service and will bring her empathy for others with her to the bench.”

Judge Robiner is a lifelong resident of Minnesota, the youngest of six and an identical twin.  After high school, she left Minneapolis for Northfield, Minn. and four years later graduated magna cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa from Carleton College in 1981.  She left the state to attend law school at Georgetown University where she received her juris doctor degree in 1985.  While a law student, Judge Robiner was an Articles and Notes Editor of the American Criminal Law Review.

After law school graduation, Judge Robiner returned to Minnesota and joined Leonard, Street and Deinard, first as associate from 1985 to 1993, and then as a shareholder from 1993 to 2000 and from 2001 until her appointment to the bench in 2006.  During 2000-2001, she was a partner at the Sprenger and Lang law firm in Minneapolis.

During her 20-plus years at Leonard, Street and Deinard, she gained a wealth of experience as a trial lawyer.  Immediately prior to her appointment, she was chair of the firm’s Intellectual Property and Information Technology Department, with her practice focusing on the highly technical practice areas of copyright, trademark, and trade secret litigation.  She also served as the Litigation Division’s professional development chair, responsible for designing and implementing the division’s attorney training program. 

Her litigation practice also included employment law and counseling, where she handled multiple discrimination and harassment cases as well as counseled clients on all aspects of employee relations.  

As a lawyer and now as a judge, Judge Robiner has been an active member of the bar as a member of the Minnesota Supreme Court Advisory Committee for the Rules of Civil Procedure; Hennepin County Bar Association Speakers Bureau; Minnesota State Bar Association Labor and Employment section; Minnesota Women Lawyers student and attorney mentoring committees; Minnesota Justice Foundation; American Bar Association Intellectual Property and Labor and Employment sections; and the American Intellectual Property Law Association.  She has also been an adjunct professor with the University of St. Thomas School of Law, and has served as a faculty member for many programs of the National Institute for Trial Advocacy.

As an involved community member, Judge Robiner volunteers at the Minneapolis Jewish Day School and at Mount Zion Temple.  She also teaches skiing for the Blizzard Ski and Snowboard School as a PSIA Level 3 ski instructor (the highest certification level in the Professional Ski Instructors Association).  Every Saturday from November through February, she teaches children from 6 years to 16 years old.  Interestingly, Judge Robiner is a second-generation instructor for Blizzard, as her father took her and her five siblings on the same ski trips when they were growing up.  She is passing on this tradition by teaching for Blizzard and bringing along her children.  Judge Robiner refers to her teaching as “a bit like Little League without the parents on the sidelines….”

Now, almost a year into her new role, she remains delighted with her new career: “I have a palpable sense of serving my community every day, and I am proud to be a member of a bench that is strong and self-critical, and that always asks the tough questions—what are we doing wrong, what are we doing right, and how can we improve.”

Judge Robiner is married to William Robiner, and has three children, Eli, 15 years; Sonia, 13 years; and Noah, 10 years old.  Her family enjoys an assortment of team sports, summer vacations, beginner golf, hardcore skiing, and, because of her husband’s New York roots, Broadway shows on Broadway itself and other Big Apple pleasures. 

 

Back to Top

   

Back to Top

 
   

   

Legal Notice

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