|
|
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:
|
|
Civil (Full Block) and Criminal |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
More
information on this Judge is available from the District
Court
Website |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Data
provided by Hennepin County District Court
Civil
Court Dispositions in 2005: |
|
Cases
are reported from date of filing. During that time
cases may be transferred between judges for various
reasons. The age of the cases and the time elapsed
before trial, therefore, may not be attributable to
the judge who eventually handles the trial. |
|
Type
of Disposition |
Number |
Avg.
Age at Disposition in Months |
Avg.
Age at
Disposition for this Court |
|
Tried by Court |
1 |
2.5 |
8.5 |
|
Tried by Jury |
3 |
14.4 |
14.3 |
|
Settled (Includes Closed
by ADR) |
57 |
7.1 |
7.9 |
|
Closed Summary
Judgment |
8 |
5.8 |
7.3 |
|
Dismissed |
18 |
3.4 |
5.1 |
|
Closed by Arbitration |
1 |
7.5 |
6.6 |
|
Other Closed |
27 |
4.4 |
2.7 |
|
Closed by Admin. |
1 |
9.9 |
0.4 |
|
Total: |
116 |
6.0 |
5.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
Read
Profile from

|
|
Published
in
February 1997 |
|
|
|

|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
- Family Court
Info. and Individual Judge's Statistics for 2005 -
Data provided by Hennepin County District Court.
View PDF. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Judge's Civil Courtroom Procedures and Advice |
Back
to Top |
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.
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.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
|