Minnesota Lawyers Professional Responsibility Complaint: Fill & Download for Free

The querent doesn’t provide any information from any source underlying the use of the term “former criminal”, but I assume from the tenor and timing of this query, that the reference is to the settlement between the City of Minneapolis and the family of Mr. George FloydCity of Minneapolis reaches $27M settlement with George Floyd's familyThe city of Minneapolis has agreed to pay $27 million to settle a civil lawsuit with George Floyd's family.https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/city-minneapolis-considering-settlement-george-floyd-s-family-n1260868The payment was to settle a lawsuit for damages from the wrongful death of Mr. Floyd, who spent an agonizing 8+ minutes being slowly smothered. On video, no less. This video was so shocking that it has led to an entire social movement and to the pending prosecution of the perpetrator. I would point out that this query has already been asked and answered on Quora:What is your opinion on The city of Minneapolis agreeing to pay $27 million to settle a civil lawsuit from George Floyd’s family over his death in police custody?https://www.quora.com/What-is-your-opinion-on-The-city-of-Minneapolis-agreeing-to-pay-27-million-to-settle-a-civil-lawsuit-from-George-Floyd-s-family-over-his-death-in-police-custodyWhy do cities such as Minneapolis pay out such huge settlements before the criminal case against its former officers even takes place?https://www.quora.com/Why-do-cities-such-as-Minneapolis-pay-out-such-huge-settlements-before-the-criminal-case-against-its-former-officers-even-takes-placePerhaps if some of that sum had been spent beforehand on training in de-escalation, or measures for education and training had been used when some previous complaints about the actions of the police officer had been spent? The suit was widely reported at the time: I quote the following from an early news report by David K. Li for NBC News:“The family of George Floyd, the Minneapolis man whose death in police custody sparked massive protests against systemic racism, filed a federal lawsuit on Wednesday against the city and the officers responsible for using "unjustified, excessive, and illegal, and deadly use of force."Benjamin Crump, a lawyer representing Floyd's children and siblings, said their 40-page civil action filed in the District of Minnesota will continue an "important conversation" on the "pandemic of police brutality."The civil complaint listed a series of violent arrests made over the years by the Minneapolis Police Department, arguing that city leaders have been negligent in reigning in police misconduct. … "The city of Minneapolis has a history of policies and procedures and deliberate indifference when it comes to the treatment of arrestees, especially Black men, that cries out for training and discipline."The lawsuit did not specify an amount of money the plaintiffs seek. But Crump said the final amount should be enough to make it "financially prohibitive" for police to "kill marginalized people and Black people in the future in America."Floyd died on May 25 after he was handcuffed and put on the ground by police officers answering a call about a possible phony $20 bill being passed.Officer Derek Chauvin was videotaped kneeling on the handcuffed Floyd's neck for over 8 minutes, even as the the man moaned in agony, repeatedly saying "I can't breathe" and calling out for his late mother."Mr. Floyd did not physically resist arrest," according to the civil complaint. "Mr. Floyd was unarmed and did not at any point physically or verbally threaten the officers, nor did he attempt to flee."The officers’ bodycams recorded Mr. Floyd begging for his life 28 times. In the United States, people are not summarily executed for the “crime” of possibly passing counterfeit money — which may well have come into a person’s possession from an innocent source.As far as Mr. Floyd being a “former criminal”, I’m not sure what meaning the querent extends to that term. Mr. Floyd did have prior experiences with being arrested, but he also had prior experiences working for religious redemption. I quote from the following article: “In 2009, Floyd served a five-year prison sentence as part of a plea deal on the 2007 charge of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon, reports the Houston Chronicle. One of his Houston pals, Ronnie Lillard, told the BBC that he became involved in his local ministry, Resurrection Houston, after being freed from jail.”Did George Floyd have a criminal past and what were his previous convictions?A history of racial bias and police brutality towards the black community in the US has been placed under the microscope after the death of George Floyd. Minnesota governor Tim Waltz said officials…https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11782066/did-george-floyd-have-criminal-past/But again, I point out that the death penalty is not applicable to passing an allegedly counterfeit $20 on a dirty street corner after being terrorized for sometime. What about the officer’s former complaints for violence? If he had not done those things while wearing a uniform, he would definitely have fit the concept of being a “former criminal” - although not one who turned to Christ for redemption.Settlements generally are reached by a plaintiff when the plaintiff estimates that the cost of the loss of the suit - in terms of attorneys’ and experts’ fees and other unavoidable expenses - added to the potential exposure to things like punitive damages and other costs, such as negative publicity - is greater than the value of the settlement. The City was represented by experienced counsel, and no doubt had insurance for this type of claim, so how much the taxpayers were to pay would not be reflected directly in the settlement amount. I have some difficulty imagining how hate-filled someone would have to be to hear and watch a man begging for his life for almost 9 minutes while being slowly - ever so slowly - smothered. Consider, as I’m sure counsel for the City did, the effect of that video on a jury of unbiased, unprejudiced jurors. The officer’s attorney is so concerned about that as to require a possible transfer of the trial to a different venue.Apparently a large number of professional people have assessed the cost to the City of litigating the case and of facing a possible judgment for damages, and have decided that settlement now made financial sense to both sides. This should not be permitted to affect the trial of the officers for murder since the City would undoubtedly have included a provision about non-presentation of the terms of the settlement in the criminal trial. However, finding enough jurors with no prior views on the case in the Minneapolis area may be so difficult as to require transfer of the trial elsewhere. This settlement is far from the last word on this topic.

I don't see a risk. Here's what happens to law firms that don't pay attention: 13 F3d 537 Milbank v. Boon.The court reasoned: "After representing Mrs. Leo through her agent, Chan Cher Boon ("Chan"), Milbank represented Chan alone without Mrs. Leo's consent in completing the same transaction. A jury found that Milbank's representation of Chan constituted a breach of fiduciary duty to Mrs. Leo that was a substantial factor in preventing her from obtaining assets she sought in the transaction.... The jury found that Milbank used confidential information from Mrs. Leo in connection with the representation of Chan."That cost Milbank, one of the world's premier law firms when this was decided, a several million dollars in damages. And the judge didn't even agree with the jury.Here's another one with a much smaller law firm, Fish & Richardson: 62 F3d 1431 in re YAMAHA CORPORATION, Petitioner:This matter stems from Yamaha Corp.'s infringement suit against ESS Technology, Inc. Fish & Richardson represents ESS in the suit.Yamaha moved to disqualify Fish & Richardson on the ground that three members of the firm possessed Yamaha proprietary information by virtue of their earlier associations with other law firms.Got that? 3 lawyers at law firm Fish & Richardson used to work someplace else. When they worked elsewhere, highly confidential information was revealed to them. Now they work at Fish -- for the other side.Naturally, Yamaha is going to be very, very uncomfortable about this. So uncomfortable they sued in court to get Fish, and its lawyers, off the case.Can you blame them?In fact, law firms have a system in place to deal with this problem -- which has become increasingly more common because partners and lawyers move around a lot more than they used to. Even the lawsuits of proofreading temps are checked to make sure that the person who worked on matter X at White & Case doesn't work on matter X for the other side at Shearman and Sterling.The system is called a Chinese Wall.A Chinese Wall is basically a solemn promise not to share confidential information with the other side. Where I work, it happens several times a year. There are extensive lists of these sides of who works on which side. No one is allowed to get touch an envelope prepared for the other side of a Chinese wall.Yamaha was no happy with the judge's decision.On April 19, 1995, the district court ruled (1) that two of the attorneys were not subject to disqualification, (2) that disqualification of one of the attorneys, who at another firm represented Yamaha in patent litigation, was warranted, and (3) that Fish & Richardson nonetheless need not be disqualified.With regard to the attorney disqualification, the district court found that Yamaha had not shown that the technical aspects of the earlier patent case were "substantially related" to the patents at issue in this case.However, the district court found that the attorney was privy to at least some confidential information regarding Yamaha's strategy for obtaining and enforcing patents, Yamaha's settlement strategy, and Yamaha's litigation strategy and that "there is a reasonable probability that such knowledge is of specific confidential information that could be relevant to the current litigation."So Yamaha appealed. Here's what the appellate court did:This Court believes that, on the facts before it, the affirmance of Fish & Richardson's already existing ethical wall is appropriate.While Fish & Richardson's attorneys involved in the current litigation are located in its Menlo Park office, Mr. Willenberg is in its Twin Cities, Minnesota office.Furthermore, Fish & Richardson has submitted uncontroverted testimony that it has a policy to "wall off" an attorney with a potential conflict from other attorneys in the firm.Moreover, Mr. Willenberg testified that he never disclosed any confidential information regarding Yamaha.And so the court ruled against Yamaha.One of the tastier lawsuits on this subject: Haagen-Dazs Co. v. Perche No! GelatoPillsbury, owner of Haagen-Dazs, was being sued by two competitors. One was Perche No! Gelato. The other was Double Rainbow Gourmet Ice Cream.At some point, Pillsbury discovered that its former staff lawyer, Franklin C. Jesse, an attorney ranked AV at Martindale Hubbell, was now working at law firm Gray Plant Mooty Mooty Bennett -- which represents Double Rainbow."As a Pillsbury attorney for ten years, Mr. Jesse was aware of Haagen-Dazs's distribution policies, and had access to confidential information relating to the issues underlying this litigation.Pillsbury felt it had to get of Gray. They filed a motion requesting... an order disqualifying the Gray firm. In addition, they claim that, due to the longstanding affiliation of the Gray firm with Double Rainbow's San Francisco counsel, Alioto Alioto ("Alioto"), that firm must also be disqualified from participation in this litigation.Ten years is a long time. But the judge did not see a problem now that Mr. Jesse was getting a paycheck from Gray:Mr. Jesse has stated in a declaration and in a deposition that he has no present knowledge of the distribution policies which are challenged here, and that he was not privy to confidences concerning the issues raised by this litigation. Furthermore, Mr. Jesse states that he has not worked on these cases, or on any of the related cases, and that his only connection with this litigation has been in response to this motion made by Pillsbury and Haagen-Dazs.The professional rules of ethics of the American Bar Association say that a lawyer who represents client A may not "represent another person in the same or substantially related matter..."Thus, to make the showing necessary for disqualification of Double Rainbow's counsel, Haagen-Dazs and Pillsbury must establish that Mr. Jesse, while at Pillsbury, worked on matters substantially related to this litigation, or that there is a reasonable probability that Mr. Jesse received confidential information. ...Mr. Jesse worked for a lengthy period of time in the Pillsbury legal department, and it is reasonable to conclude that, as a senior attorney in that office, he also had significant contact with Pillsbury management during the formulation of its super premium ice cream acquisition and marketing strategy.While Mr. Jesse states that he was not aware of Haagen-Dazs's distribution policies, his presence in the legal department at the time Pillsbury entered the super premium ice cream market suggests that he was at least exposed to management's and the legal department's consideration of distribution policies. ...The court concludes that disqualification of Mr. Jesse is necessary to protect Haagen-Dazs' and Pillsbury's confidences and to avoid the appearance of impropriety. ...The Ninth Circuit has ruled that an entire law firm must be disqualified when one of its members was counsel for an adverse party in a substantially related matter. ...The Gray firm has argued that its disqualification is not mandated because it instituted a screening procedure whereby all files and information relating to this litigation were sealed off from Mr. Jesse. The Ninth Circuit has considered this so-called "Chinese Wall" defense twice... Other courts have found such screening procedures to be acceptable under certain circumstances. ...In this case, it appears that the Gray firm did not institute the "Chinese Wall" measures until after the first of these suits had been filed. The record discloses that Mr. Jesse joined the Gray firm in November 1984. The Gray firm was first contacted concerning the litigation in August, 1985. The complaint was filed on August 30, 1985. Haagen-Dazs then requested that the Gray firm disqualify itself on or about October 30, 1985. On November 6, 1985, the Gray firm instituted its screening procedures. In light of the fact that the screening procedures were not instituted until after the litigation commenced, and one year after Mr. Jesse's employment, the court concludes that Double Rainbow's "Chinese Wall" defense will not insulate the firm from disqualification.Franklin Jesse and his law firm, Gray Plant, were disqualified.Courts take the fiduciary relationship very seriously. So that you don't have to.

You’re probably being too real.A lot of people assume that they are supposed to show their true, authentic self when interviewing. For a lot of people, their true self would be considered unprofessional in most workplaces.You have to remember that you’re playing a role for a company. It’s like acting.I’m not encouraging you to lie, but to consider your “professional self”.Imagine yourself in 5 years, succeeding at the goals you are currently trying to accomplish. How would that person answer the questions? Imagine your mentor, or the person you consider to be the “ideal professional”. How would that person answer?A lot of personality assessments are not technically legal. They ask questions like “are you prone to depression” when, in reality, major depression is considered a protected class under the Americans with Disabilities Act.If you are prone to depression, anxiety, social phobia, emotional sensitivity, or other mental health conditions (along with at least 25% of the US population), you may be unfairly screened out and disqualified.Here’s an excerpt from WSJ on the topic:Workers who apply online at RadioShack Corp. must say if they agree with the statement: "Over the course of the day, I can experience many mood changes." Lowe's Cos. asks job seekers if they "believe that others have good intentions." A test at McDonald's Corp. said: "If something very bad happens, it takes some time before I feel happy again."The use of online personality tests by employers has surged in the past decade as they try to streamline the hiring process, especially for customer-service jobs. Such tests are used to assess the personality, skills, cognitive abilities and other traits of 60% to 70% of prospective workers in the U.S., up from 30% to 40% about five years ago, estimates Josh Bersin, principal of consulting firm Bersin by Deloitte, a unit of auditor Deloitte LLP.Workplace personality testing has become a $500 million-a-year business and is growing by 10% to 15% a year, estimates Hogan Assessment Systems Inc., a Tulsa, Okla., testing company. Xerox Corp. says tests have reduced attrition in high-turnover customer-service jobs by 20 or more days in some cases. Dialog Direct, of Highland Park, Mich., says the testing software allows the call-center operator and manager to predict with 80% accuracy which employees will get the highest performance scores.But the rise of personality tests has sparked growing scrutiny of their effectiveness and fairness. Some companies have scaled back, changed or eliminated their use of such tests. Civil-rights groups long focused on overt forms of workplace discrimination claim that data-driven algorithms powering the tests could make jobs harder to get for people who don't conform to rigid formulas.PROBING QUESTIONS | FROM RECENT ONLINE TESTSJob applicants at McDonald's must say which statement out of a pair they agree with more. An example:I sometimes get confused by my own thoughts and feelings.I do not really like when I have to do something I have not done before.RadioShack asks potential employees if they strongly disagree, disagree, feel neutral about, agree or strongly agree with specific statements, such as:Over the course of the day, I can experience many mood changes.I am always happy.Sometimes there is so much stress I wonder how I am going to make it through the day.Source: the companiesJulie Brill, a Democrat on the Federal Trade Commission who has examined companies' use of data, says algorithms designed to reduce bias "ironically could have the effect of creating a new kind of discrimination." The FTC doesn't have the power to regulate workplace issues.Whole Foods Market Inc.stopped using the tests in 2007 after managers noticed that workers who cleared the personality-screening process sometimes lacked basic food-preparation skills. "For us, it just wasn't a good fit," says company spokesman Michael Silverman.Xerox quit looking at data about job applicants' commuting time even though data showed that customer-service employees who got to work faster were likely to keep their jobs at Xerox longer. Xerox managers decided the information could put applicants from minority neighborhoods at a disadvantage in the hiring process."There's some knowledge that you gain that you should stay away from when making a hiring decision," says Teri Morse, Xerox's vice president of recruitment. Overall, though, the company is "shocked all the time" by the accuracy of tests it began using in 2012, she says.Xerox has begun probing for compassion in pre-employment tests, since applicants who score high for empathy tend to excel in customer service, according to the company. The tests are provided by Evolv Inc., a closely held San Francisco firm that calls itself the "recognized leader in big data workforce optimization."Evolv's chief executive, Max Simkoff, says personality-related criteria are a small part of its overall test, which also examines a job seeker's motivation, creativity and technical aptitude.The Equal Employment Opportunity commission is investigating whether personality tests discriminate against people with disabilities. As part of the investigation, officials are trying to determine if the tests shut out people suffering from mental illnesses such as depression or bipolar disorder, even if they have the right skills for the job, according to EEOC documents.EEOC officials won't comment on the investigation. In general, though, "if a person's results are affected by the fact that they have an impairment and the results are used to exclude the person from a job, the employer needs to defend their use of the test even if the test was lawful and administered correctly," says Christopher Kuczynski,EEOC acting associate legal counsel.Employers are watching the investigation closely. A ruling against personality tests would "set a tremendous precedent," forcing companies and test makers to prove their tests aren't discriminatory, says Marc Bendick, an economist and consultant who studies workforce diversity issues.Test sellers have said their own studies show personality tests don't have an adverse impact on applicants based on race or gender. However, little work has been done on disabilities.In 2011, Rhode Island regulators said there was "probable cause" to conclude that drugstore chain CVS Health Corp. might have violated a state law barring employers from eliciting information about the mental health or physical disabilities of job applicants.The Woonsocket, R.I., company's personality test asked potential employees to say whether they agreed or disagreed with statements like "People do a lot of things that make you angry," "There's no use having close friends; they always let you down," "Many people cannot be trusted," and "You are unsure of what to say when you meet someone."CVS removed the questions in 2011 and settled a civil "charge of discrimination" filed by the Rhode Island American Civil Liberties Union, which claimed the test "could have the effect of discriminating against applicants with certain mental impairments or disorders."CVS neither admitted nor denied wrongdoing. The company confirmed the settlement but declined further comment on the Rhode Island case. The retailer still uses personality tests in hiring but has changed suppliers.Job-screening personality tests are largely based on a psychological model developed in the 1930s. Until recently, job candidates often took the tests well into the hiring process, and the results were considered along with interviews and past experience.As the hiring process gets more automated and employers begin incorporating more data into hiring, the tests are used more often and earlier in the process to winnow applicants for specific jobs.The responses to an online personality test are fed into an algorithm that scores each applicant, sometimes on a scale of red, yellow and green. Scoring systems vary by testing provider, and the companies can customize their methods to fit an employer's demands. Red applicants—and sometimes yellow ones—rarely get the chance to interview for a job.Automated personality tests can "screen out the 30% of applicants who are least qualified" before an employer even looks at a résumé, according to Ken Lahti, vice president of product development and innovation at CEB, an Arlington, Va., company that provides pre-employment tests.Deniz Ones, an industrial and organizational psychologist at the University of Minnesota, says the tests have some predictive value. For example, a worker's ranking on measurements of conscientiousness can tell bosses about work ethic, she says.RadioShack uses behavioral questions as just one tool to assess job candidates, says a person close to the company. Lowe's says its personality tests help the home-improvement retailer "in developing a workforce that will provide the best shopping experience for customers." McDonald's spokeswoman Lisa McComb says personality questions are used to elicit "accurate and candid responses," not to assess a job candidate's qualifications.Academic studies have concluded that individual personality traits have at most a small connection with performance. "It's intuitively appealing to managers that personality matters," says Fred Morgeson, a management professor and organizational psychologist at Michigan State University, but the link is "much lower than the field has led us to believe."Personality-testing firms and companies that hire them disclose little information about the tests, saying their formulas are proprietary. For example, Kronos Inc. has opposed the EEOC's efforts in a civil lawsuit to force the test provider to hand over internal validity studies and other documents related to its assessments.Since 2007, the EEOC has been investigating allegations by a West Virginia woman that supermarket chain Kroger Co.'s personality test discriminated against people with disabilities.The Cincinnati company declined to comment, but applicants for hourly positions at Kroger stores must complete an extensive online application that includes a personality test.As part of about 80 personality-related questions in a 2012 version of the Kroger test, job candidates were asked to "strongly disagree," "disagree," "agree" or "strongly agree" with statements like "You are always cheerful" and "You have no big worries."In 2012 and 2013, Kroger and six other companies were accused by retired Nokia Corp. lawyer Roland Behm of discrimination against the mentally ill through their use of personality tests. Mr. Behm filed complaints with the EEOC on behalf of his son, Kyle.Kyle Behm says he applied online in 2012 for hourly jobs at Finish Line Inc., Home Depot Inc., Kroger, Lowe's, PetSmart Inc., WalgreenCo. and Yum Brands Inc. He held similar positions in the past and had a personal connection at his local Kroger store. But he says he was turned down everywhere.The engineering student at Mercer University in Macon, Ga., was diagnosed with bipolar disorder about 18 months before the job rejections. He says a Kroger employee told him he scored "red" on the test, which indicated he might ignore customers if he felt upset or angry. He didn't tell Kroger about his diagnosis and wasn't required to under the law.Mr. Behm's father says he contacted all seven companies about his concerns. Most denied culpability but suggested they could find a suitable job for Kyle if he agreed not to pursue legal action. The father and son decided to file discrimination charges with the EEOC instead, hoping to force changes to the companies' hiring processes.The complaints against Kroger and PetSmart were folded into the EEOC's continuing investigation of personality tests, according to letters sent to Mr. Behm by the EEOC. The agency is reviewing Mr. Behm's complaints against the five other companies.The tests used by Kroger and PetSmart were created by assessment vendor Unicru Inc. and administered by Kronos. Kronos bought Unicru in 2006. Kronos Vice President Charles DeWitt wouldn't comment on the Behm case but says testing is "only a small part of our business."A PetSmart spokesperson says the Phoenix company is "committed to fair recruitment and employment practices," declining to comment on Mr. Behm. Finish Line says the athletic-gear retailer is aware of challenges to pre-employment assessments but is "confident" and stands by "Finish Line's employment policies and practices."Jim Pemberton, Walgreen's chief diversity officer, wouldn't comment on Mr. Behm's accusations but says the Deerfield, Ill., drugstore chain has special recruitment programs for people with disabilities."In our experience, we feel we can expect people with disabilities to perform the same job at the same level, with the same pay and the same standards of excellence as people without them," Mr. Pemberton says. "We have no intention to dismiss a population that we're trying to attract."Home Depot declined to comment. A Lowe's spokeswoman says it is "inappropriate for us to comment about Mr. Behm's claims," adding that the company's "hiring assessment complies" with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Yum couldn't be reached for comment.Kroger has dropped from its hiring test many of the questions Mr. Behm and his father found most troubling. A recent version posted online, also administered by Kronos, was 11 pages long, down from 17 pages in 2012, and includes just 12 personality-related statements. Instead, much of the recent test asks applicants to respond to hypothetical work scenarios and choose one of two endings to 19 statements that begin "When at work I…"For example, "…Am liked by nearly everyone" or "…Believe there are some people that don't like me." Kroger declined to comment on the changes or the EEOC investigation.Mr. Behm, who is 24 years old and is in his senior year at Mercer, says he could have lied on tests to give answers that might have seemed more agreeable. "I didn't think it was necessary, and I didn't think it was really ethical," he says.His disorder was never an issue in his previous jobs, he says. "They would've known that if they contacted any of my references."