Judge Peterson - Hennepin County District Court

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

HCBA Homepage Meet the Judges How District Court Works Judicial Elections

Judge Bruce Peterson

Born:

1951

Education:

1978 Yale Law School
1972 Cornell University

Recent Career:

1999 Judge, Fourth Judicial District
1997 Hinshaw & Culberston
1987 Popham, Haik, Schnobrich & Kaufman
1980 Assistant U.S. Attorney, District of Columbia
1979 Special Assistant to the Deputy Assistant Attorney General,
U.S. Department of Justice
1978 Law Clerk – Minnesota Supreme Court

Elevated to Bench:

Appointed by Governor Jesse Ventura in 1999.
Elected in 2000 and 2006.

Previous Assignments:

4/1999 to 2/2000	Criminal
3/2000 to 12/2001	Civil Block and Criminal
1/2002 to 3/2005	Family
3/2005 to 6/2006	Civil & Criminal
7/2006 to Present	Family

Current Assignments:

Family

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	4	8.8	8.5
Tried by Jury	3	12.4	14.3
Settled (Includes Closed by ADR)	6	7.3	7.9
Closed Summary Judgment	1	2.7	7.3
Dismissed	37	7.3	5.1
Closed by Arbitration	5	7.3	6.6
Other Closed	46	3.2	2.7
Closed by Admin.	3	3.9	0.4
Total:	105	5.5	5.7

- Family Court Info. and Individual Judge's Statistics for 2005 -
Data provided by Hennepin County District Court. View PDF.


	Read Profile from
	Published in August 1999

The Judge's Family Courtroom Procedures and Advice

1. Do you view your term on family court as a positive or negative experience?
Positive, but very challenging.

2. Do you have any prior personal or professional experience in family court?
No.

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)?
An emergency ex parte motion should go to a blocked judge, not the signing judge. I will consider emergency and ex parte matters by telephone. I will not rule on any emergency motion until the opposing party has been given an opportunity to participate if at all possible. For cases governed by an existing case management order, no paperwork is necessary. For new ex parte motions, a written motion and affidavit are required.

4. How are you dividing the work load between judges and referees, in terms of types of cases and issues?
I have an independent case load and do not work with a referee.

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?
All judicial officers in our Family Court are using case management conferences. They are scheduled shortly after filing. The parties and, if applicable, counsel are present. I conduct them. As stated in our case management order: “No motions will be heard but any issues agreed to may be memorialized in an order.” Often temporary issues can be resolved by discussion at the conference.

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 require some form of ADR in every dissolution case. Unless the parties select a private mediator, I refer parties to the Hennepin County Settlement Program. In contested custody cases, if appropriate and the parties agree, I refer the parties for an Early Neutral Evaluation by our Family Court Services Department prior to initiating a custody evaluation. I have referred a small number of cases for trial by private magistrates when the court schedule could not accommodate the needs of the parties.

7. Are you imposing any timelines on Family Court Services for completion of their studies?
Our Family Court Services Department will not produce a custody or parenting time recommendation in less than 120 days.

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?
Almost all of the guardians I appoint are from the panel. I appoint guardians where the statute requires, i.e., if there is reason to believe a child has been abused or neglected. On occasion I will appoint a guardian ad litem to perform a non-mandatory function, such as to assist the parties in initiating reunification therapy. If the parties agree on the use of a private guardian ad litem, they are free to have the guardian appointed for any reasonable purpose.

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 on a day certain basis and these trials always settle or proceed on the day scheduled.

10. Are you enforcing the timelines for motion paper filings, and if a violation occurs, what is your typical sanction?
I enforce the timelines unless there is good cause for a late filing or the opposing party does not object. If there is a late filing without good cause, I exclude the proposed evidence.

11. What are your expectations of pro se litigants?
This question is too broad to be answered here. The answer varies widely depending upon the type of proceeding, the capability of the pro se litigant, whether the other party is represented, and whether a child would be put at risk by enforcing a procedural rule violated by the pro se party. If an impoverished and uneducated pro se litigant came into my courtroom with no or inadequate paperwork and said his/her child was continually being abused by the other parent, I would make sure the matter was addressed. The availability of the Family Court Self-Help Center to assist litigants is essential in expecting them to be able to follow court rules.

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 impose attorney fees, and on occasion I have ordered parties not to bring further motions on a particular issue.

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 use any set timelines, but I move cases along as quickly as possible to save the parties time and money. Most temporary relief hearings have been eliminated by agreements reached at the initial case management conferences.

14. Will you receive correspondence sent directly to the court from a neutral expert in the case?
I regularly receive reports and correspondence directly from Family Court Services, Psychological Services, and court guardians ad litem. I do not typically receive correspondence from private experts.

15. How would you characterize your willingness to award attorney fees as a sanction in a case?
I award attorney fees if a party can demonstrate that the fees were incurred because the other party unreasonably contributed to the length or expense of the proceeding.

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?
If settlement efforts, including mediation and/or an early neutral evaluation, in a contested custody case have failed, I refer the parties to Family Court Services and order that costs be imposed on a sliding fee scale. I never order the parties to retain the services of a private custody evaluator. I have ordered parties to retain a private parenting consultant and share the cost.

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?
Most of the time in case management conferences is spent working out mutually agreeable solutions. For dissolution cases that do not settle at that stage, I schedule formal ADR proceedings following discovery. At pretrial conferences and trial dates, if the parties are close to resolution I may attempt to help them by discussing my usual practice with respect to particular issues or proposing a solution for their consideration.

18. Will you allow parties to have motions heard at pre-trial conferences?
I am not sure what motions would be appropriate for hearing at a pre-trial conference. By that time discovery has been completed, so discovery motions would not be appropriate. A trial is imminent, so temporary relief motions would not be appropriate. We do not typically schedule time for motion hearings during pre-trial conferences, so prior approval would be needed.

Judicial Profile from The Hennepin Lawyer (68:8:12)

Bruce Peterson
Originally published in the August 1999 issue.
Author: Courtney Ward-Reichard

The most recent addition to the Hennepin County bench is Minneapolis attorney Bruce Peterson. Judge Peterson was Gov. Jesse Ventura’s first judicial appointment—and a welcome one for members of the Hennepin County bar. Peterson replaces Judge John Stanoch, who resigned to take a position in the Minnesota Attorney General’s office. Peterson called Stanoch an "innovative" judge, especially in the area of juvenile law, and said he was "delighted to follow in his footsteps."

Judge Peterson has an extensive background in public and private law. He graduated from Cornell University in 1972 and Yale Law School in 1978. From 1978 to 1979, Judge Peterson served as a judicial clerk for Chief Justice Robert Sheran of the Minnesota Supreme Court. Judge Peterson said that Sheran was a "great role model" for his own work as a judge.

From 1979 to 1986, Judge Peterson worked in Washington, D.C. as an assistant U.S. attorney and a special assistant to the deputy assistant Attorney general at the Department of Justice. During this time, Judge Peterson obtained extensive experience in criminal law, handling countless felony jury trials.

In 1987, Judge Peterson returned to Minnesota and joined the law firm of Popham Haik Schnobrich & Kaufman. He joined the law firm of Hinshaw & Culbertson in 1997 when it acquired Popham Haik. In private practice, Judge Peterson specialized in white-collar criminal defense, commercial litigation, and governmental law. He has been selected as a "Minnesota Leading Attorney" and "Super Lawyer" in these three practice areas by local publications.

One of the most striking things about Judge Peterson is his significant and long-standing commitment to pro bono and other volunteer community activities. He received the HCBA Pro Bono Publico Award in 1997 in recognition of his extensive involvement in volunteer work, including numerous hours spent heading a team that obtained a new trial for a mentally retarded death-row inmate in Florida and his work as legal advisor to Minneapolis Way to Grow. Judge Peterson also coordinated the FATHER project through Way to Grow, an innovative program to assist non-custodial fathers in improving employment, child support, and parenting in order to reduce welfare dependency. He helped obtain $2.5 million in funding for the project from the Labor Department and the Ford Foundation and received a 1998 Minneapolis Award from Mayor Sharon Sayles Belton.

Judge Peterson is very excited about his new appointment and his tasks ahead. He has been struck so far by the breadth of matters that come up before the court. He has worked hard to give litigants his undivided attention and learn diverse areas of the law. Judge Peterson says that everyone, including his fellow judges, has been helpful and supportive.

Judge Peterson is most looking forward to the contact with people in his new job. He views his work as a "brief opportunity to do something constructive about individual people’s lives." His ultimate goal is "to have people leave [his court] with more respect for the law and the system than when they came in." During the selection process, Governor Ventura asked Peterson how the system could be more responsive to ordinary citizens. It is Judge Peterson’s intention to do his best to fulfill this request. As Judge Peterson stated during an unsuccessful run for judge in 1996, his judicial values include "respect for the law, recognition of the witnesses and victims as well as the parties, and impartial, intelligent decision making."

Judge Peterson lives with his wife, Elissa, and 7-year-old daughter, Emma, near Lake Harriet. The family spends its spare time outside, doing just about anything at the lake: walking, running or biking around it; swimming in it; or skating on it.