Judge faces formal complaint from state board

Listen to this article

A 10th Judicial District judge with chambers in Anoka faces a formal complaint from the Minnesota Board on Judicial Standards. On April 26, the board asked the Minnesota Supreme Court to appoint a three-person panel to conduct a public hearing regarding the actions of District Court Judge John P. Dehen in seeking to rehire a court reporter.

Dehen denies violating “any of the Rules of Judicial Conduct.”

Dehen was licensed to practice law in Minnesota in 1988, and he has served as a judge in the Tenth Judicial District since he was elected in 2010.

The complaint

In its complaint, the board says outlines its factual allegations:

After his court reporter resigned, Dehen directed the 10th Judicial District Court administrator, Sarah Lindahl-Pfieffer, to rehire the court reporter, Lisha Shufelt, at the top of the pay range, though he was advised that there is a human resources policy that recently separated employees who are rehired into the same position are compensated at the same rate they received before separation.

The board asserted that Dehen “lacked inherent authority” to order the hiring at a specific rate of pay, as compensation is a matter determined “by court administration pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement with the union representing the court reporters.” Nevertheless, Dehen initiated a proceeding in district court, and he assigned it to himself on Sept. 20, 2023.

On the same day, Dehen, sua sponte, filed an order where he appointed his former court reporter as his official court reporter. He also issued a peremptory writ commanding the 10th Judicial District Court administrator to pay the court reporter at salary Step 11. The administrator sought review in the Minnesota Court of Appeals; the court stayed the order. On Oct. 24, 2023, the court issued a writ of prohibition vacating the order and preemptory writ.

“The record reflects that the district judge sought to rehire his former court reporter at the top of the pay range, without obtaining approval to do so. The judge identified no authority that clearly required petitioner to implement the judge’s decision,” the court wrote.

A week later, Dehen again, sua sponte, issued an order and alternative writ of mandamus that required the administrator to respond and show cause why the court reporter had not been rehired at salary Step 6. He filed these documents in a closed court file. Again, the administrator sought appellate court. In November 2023, the Court of Appeals issued a second writ of prohibition that vacated the order and writ of mandamus filed by the district court.

“Prohibition is also appropriate because the judge acted improperly by circumventing consideration of the matter in an adversary proceeding before an impartial and disinterested court,” the court wrote.

Subsequently, Dehen sought reimbursement for the filing fees to file the writs and motions as business expenses. He also emailed Chief Judge Stoney L. Hiljus, musing that his “next step is to sue the branch” or the administrator.

“In addition to the complete lack of procedural and substantive authority for Judge Dehen to issue the writs, as noted by the Court of Appeals, Judge Dehen had a clear disqualifying conflict of interest in the cases involving Shufelt because he both initiated the proceedings, and decided the matters. Judge Dehen failed to recuse even though he acknowledged he was beneficially interested in the outcome,” the board alleged.

“Throughout these proceedings Judge Dehen has acted in a manner suggesting that he is representing the interests of Shufelt and engaging in the prohibited practice of law while holding a judicial position,” the board added.

Dehen’s response

On April 16, Dehen responded to the complaint in a letter in which he said, “I deny violating any of the Rules of Judicial Conduct.”

Dehen stated that human resources did not give him a copy of the policy that they claimed Dehen was in violation of. “HR refused to consult, review, or approve my chosen appointee or otherwise respond to me on why HR was treating my requested hire different than two other judges’ recent court reporter hires in similar situations,” Dehen wrote.

Dehen also denied that he “assigned” anything to himself. “It was an issue of first impression, so far as my research revealed, and involved the inherent power of a constitutional district court to maintain a court unit as provided by the legislature in statute and pursuant to the published HR rules.”

“I deny that I acknowledged I was beneficially interested other than the right of any judicial officer to appoint a competent court reporter in order to allow the judicial officer, and therefore district court, to function,” Dehen wrote.

Dehen has been privately admonished before in connection with a matter in which he was a petitioner in conciliation court. Two individuals were sued by Dehen for intentional fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract for their actions in selling six chairs on Facebook marketplace. In a 2021 letter to the defendants, Dehen told them that he was a district court judge who had presided over matters that were similar to this. In 2022, the board privately admonished Dehen for “abuse of the prestige of judicial office.”

The board alleges that Dehen violated 13 Rules of the Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct. If a panel is appointed, it can either dismiss the case or recommend that the Supreme Court issue an order for censure, suspension, or other sanction.

See also:

Court suspends lawyer who has been disciplined 14 times since ’79

OLPR resubmits disbarment petition for lawyer who killed ex-wife