Hennepin County Bar Association Presents:
 
A View of the Hennepin County Bench

HCBA Homepage            Meet the Judges            How District Court Works           Judicial Elections 

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