|
|
Chief 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 and 2002. |
|
|
|
|
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 Present |
Chief Judge |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current
Assignments:
|
|
Chief Judge |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
More
information on this Judge is available from the District
Court
Website |
|
|
|
- Family
Court Info. and Individual Judge's Statistics for 2005 -
Data provided by Hennepin County District Court.
View PDF. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
