| |
|
Judge James T. Swenson
|
| |
|
|
| Born: |
|
1950 |
| |
|
|
| Education: |
|
1976 JD University of Minnesota Law School
1972 BA University of Minnesota |
| |
|
|
| Recent Career: |
|
1995 Judge, Hennepin County District Court
1976 Attorney, Mackall, Crounse & Moore |
| |
|
|
| Elevated to Bench: |
|
Appointed by Governor Arne Carlson in 1995.
Elected in 1996, 2002 and 2008. |
| |
|
|
| Previous Assignments: |
|
|
10/1995 to 12/1996
|
Criminal and Civil
|
|
1/1997 to 7/2008
|
Family
|
|
7/2006 to 7/2008
|
Assistant Chief Judge
|
|
7/2008 to 7/2012
|
Chief Judge
|
|
7/2012 to present
|
Family
|
|
| |
|
|
Current Assignments:
|
|
Family |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
More information on this Judge is available from the District Court Website
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Read Profile from
|
| |
Published in
Jan/Feb 1996
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| The Judge's Civil Courtroom Procedures and Advice |
Back to Top
|
1. What are your preferred procedures regarding motion practice?
No discovery motions unless approved in advance.
2. What are your preferred procedures regarding hearings?
No particular preferences.
3. What do you expect the attorneys to have ready at the pretrial conference?
Names of all witnesses and amount of trial time needed. Must have met before the pre-trial and discussed settlement and fact stipulations.
4. At what point to you expect the parties to undertake ADR, if at all?
There is no particular time - it depends on each case and the issues involved.
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.?)
Settlement offers have to be exchanged in advance of the family court pretrial.
6. Do you require that a person with ultimate authority to settle be present at settlement negotiations?
Yes.
7. How do you expect the parties to handle discovery disputes (including calling you for a ruling during a deposition)?
Always open to telephone conferences.
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, but not if testimony is necessary (except on rare occasions involving unavailable witnesses). The attorneys need to arrange the hearing in advance and provide me with the written submissions in advance.
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)?
No particular preferences other than cell phones turned off.
10. When, if ever, would you consider issuing sanctions, formal reprimands, holding an attorney in contempt, or reporting an attorney for unethical behavior?
I do not hesitate to impose sanctions when attorneys ignore the requirements of my pretrial orders. I warn counsel when contempt is possible and 99% of the attorneys pay attention. Thus I meted out few contempt sanctions.
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?
Ex parte communications go through my clerks. They draw to my attention anything that needs my response and then we solicit a response from the other side. More often than not, the person who sent the ex parte communication is advised not to do it again and also advised that the Court has not considered the contents.
12. What is your practice with granting continuances and under what circumstances would you consider granting one?
Unlikely to grant continuances - more likely to allow additional time, but then handle the matter by written submissions without oral arguments unless I feel the need for arguments.
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!
14. What do you consider to be the basic requirements of good oral argument (including the amount of time appropriate for oral argument)?
Focus on the key nuances.
15. What preferences do you have for jury trials? How do you prefer voir dire to be conducted?
I have not had a jury trial in almost six years because I've been on family court that long. Before I accepted the family court assignment, I required strict adherence to voir dire rules.
|
Back to Top
|
| The Judge's Family Courtroom Procedures and Advice |
Back to Top
|
| |
|
1. Do you view your term on family court as a positive or negative experience?
Very positive experience.
2. Do you have any prior personal or professional experience in family court?
Limited experience as a Legal Advice Clinics lawyer.
3. 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, to to the signing judge or a blocked judge)?
Emergency and/or ex parte motions must go to the blocked judicial officer. If the blocked judicial officer is unavailable, then the signing judge may exercise his/her discretion to address the motion.
4. How are you dividing the work load between judges and referees, in terms of types of cases and issues?
There is no differentiation between the cases and calendars assigned to referees and judges. Referees perform the same day to day tasks as judges, other than the daily "signing" position, along with the "confirmation" process, both of which are reserved for judges. Other than a new change that allows referees to sign domestic abuse ex parte orders that become effective before being co-signed by a judge, all other referee orders must be confirmed by a judge before they become effective. Referees are paired with judges for confirmation purposes and the amount of time devoted to that task varies among judges.
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?
I use aggressive case management techniques. Except in very rare situations, an Initial Case Management Conference ("ICMC") must occur within three weeks after the petition or counter-petition has been filed. Both parties and counsel must attend. No motions are allowed at the ICMC. See Justice Blatz's April 23, 2004 Order implementing the family court, best practices pilot programs for a detailed list of the techniques applied during the case management process.
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?
I make extensive use of ADR techniques, although I do not always employ outside ADR vendors. I have not yet used a consensual special magistrate to try a case, but I have employed Rule 53 referees to help manage distinct components. Unless a case settles before implementation of ADR techniques, there is always some ADR technique used in every case.
7. Are you imposing any timelines on Family Court Services for completion of their studies?
Family Court Services has a standard 120 turn around time for a complete evaluation. I usually accommodate a request from the evaluator for a little extra time.
8. What criteria are you using for the appointment of guardians ad litem, and is it any different for private guardians ad litem or guardians ad litem from the panel?
All guardians are appointed by the Fourth Judicial District guardian ad litem coordinator.
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?
99% of my cases are set for a day certain.
10. Are you enforcing the timelines for motion paper filings, and if a violation occurs, what is your typical sanction?
I generally enforce the timelines. There is no "typical" sanction when someone misses a deadline. The sanction, if any, is always fact-specific.
11. What are your expectations of pro se litigants?
I do not expect them to perform as though they are lawyers, but if I order them to do something, I expect full compliance.
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 do not have any policies or practices for controlling parties who continue to bring frivolous motions in the same case time and time again. Instead, I usually try to handle it before it becomes a problem. For example, if I determine that a litigant has been bringing frivolous motions, I may issue an order that precludes the litigant from placing any more motions on my calendar until the motion has been approved in advance by my chambers.
13. Do you have any timelines that you enforce in moving a case from case management conference to temporary relief hearing to trial? Timelines are always case and fact-specific. It is safe to say that most cases move through the system with dispatch. A comparison of my statistics before and after implementation of the aggressive case management process showed that my cases are concluded an average of 45% faster under the case management proves.
14. Will you receive correspondence sent directly to the court from a neutral expert in the case?
I will accept correspondence sent directly to me from a neutral expert, but if it involves an action item my staff solicits input from the parties before I act. In rare occasions involving an emergency, I may act based upon the correspondent alone.
15. How would you characterize your willingness to award attorney fees as a sanction in a case?
I rarely award attorney's fees as a "sanction," but I quite often award conduct-based fees, but the amount is intended to compensate the affected party rather than punish the other party.
16. Do you ever order the parties to retain the services of a neutral evaluator or private parenting consultant and then require them to share in the costs?
"Neutral evaluator" needs to be defined. If you are referring to a Rule 706 "agreed upon expert," the parties' agreement usually includes a cost-sharing component, or an agreement to have the court weigh in at a later date. "Private parenting consultants" refers to a hybrid position that is not authorized by rule or statute. Usually the parties have an agreement that sets forth the parameters of the engagement.
17. 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 cautious and usually involve myself in the process only when requested by the parties or counsel. If the parties ask me to, I may venture an opinion regarding how I might decide the case, but I always make it clear that my final decision will be based on what unfolds before me at a later date.
18. Will you allow parties to have motions heard at pre-trial conferences?
I rarely use "pre-trial conferences" as that phrase was used as part of former family court procedures. I cannot remember when I last, if ever, heard a motion during a pre-trial conference. In my court pre-trial conferences are usually very late appearances designed to hammer out the details of a rapidly approaching trial.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| Judicial Profile from The Hennepin Lawyer (65:3:16) |
|
| |
|
|
James T. Swenson
Originally published in the January/February 1996 issue.
Author: Cortney G. Sylvester
The work of the courts in modern society is often arduous and sometimes daunting, yet the needs of civilization demand that it be completed. Only efficiency and commitment to the task at hand can ensure that the judicial function is carried out properly. In light of these requirements, Judge James T. Swenson is a most appropriate choice for the Hennepin County bench. Judge Swenson brings to the court not only a firm commitment to serve those involved with the justice system, but also a wealth of experience and skill as both a litigator and an adjudicator.
Judge Swenson is a native of the Twin Cities, born in Minneapolis and raised in Edina. After graduating from Edina High School, he attended the University of Colorado for one year before he decided to return to Minnesota. Judge Swenson transferred to the University of Minnesota, where he received his undergraduate degree (Phi Beta Kappa) in 1972. He graduated with honors from the University of Minnesota Law School in 1976.
Fresh from law school, Judge Swenson joined the litigation firm of Mackall, Crounse & Moore, where he remained until ascending to the bench in 1995. While trying cases in a number of substantive areas, he focused primarily on commercial litigation, and served as the chair of Mackall, Crounse’s commercial litigation section for approximately five years. Judge Swenson was also active outside the firm in this practice area. He served as an officer of the Construction Section of the Minnesota State Bar Association, edited the section’s newsletter and lectured at numerous seminars.
Although most accustomed to the advocate’s role, Judge Swenson has substantial experience as an adjudicator. For six years he heard variance appeals for the city of Minneapolis. He has been a qualified ADR neutral, has mediated or arbitrated over 50 cases, and has taught arbitration. Judge Swenson feels this experience acclimated him somewhat to the process of judging. He also believes it gave him valuable insight into the utility and management of ADR, particularly in light of the recently issued requirements of the General Rules of Practice for the District Courts. He now knows when ADR will truly be helpful, and is sensitive to concerns that premature resort to processes such as mediation can be counterproductive and may cause unwarranted dissatisfaction with the concept of ADR.
While Judge Swenson’s legal background is striking, he has also committed himself to serving the community. Judge Swenson began serving as a Big Brother in 1975. He maintains regular contact with his Little Brother, who now has a family of his own. In addition, Judge Swenson has served as a board member and officer of the Legal Advice Clinics, and has provided free legal assistance to the indigent. He has also given time back to his alma mater, having served on the University of Minnesota Athletic Oversight Committee. Judge Swenson’s work for the university earned him the Law School’s Regents’ Alumni Service Award.
Even though he will avoid a prefabricated agenda and will remain open to the challenges of the job, Judge Swenson will naturally be guided by some fundamental principles. He was impressed during judicial orientation by discussions of "Total Quality Management" as applied to the justice system. Drawing on the examples set by his predecessors and colleagues on the court, he believes TQM principles can help him serve his "customers," including lawyers, litigants, jurors, and staff, each of whom has different needs.
Judge Swenson intends to remain active in his time away from the law. He is an avid tennis player. He is also an accomplished painter who did artwork for a U.S. Swim team poster and painted a collage entitled "There’s Only One U" for the University of Minnesota Law and Medical schools’ centennial.
Judge Swenson resides in Edina. His wife, Ann, is a member of the Edina Planning Commission and the board of the Edina Country Club, and also runs competitive swimming meets. He has two children, a daughter attending the University of Iowa and a son attending Edina High School.
With his commitment to work and community, Judge Swenson should be well suited for his new position. Conscious of the needs of the system, yet also conscious of the needs of those working within it, he brings valuable insight and skills to the bench. Members of the bar in Hennepin County can look forward to appearing in Judge Swenson’s court.
|
Back to Top
|
| |
|
|
Back to Top
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|