In 2 north metro judicial races, a choice

Although incumbent judges seldom face challengers, north metro area voters have the unusual opportunity to vote in two contested judicial races in November.

The two challengers, lawyers John Dehen and Luke Stellpflug, note that both of their opponents have accumulated a sizable number of removal notices. Prosecutors or trial attorneys can file a removal notice and get a new judge without citing any reason when a case is first assigned to a judge.

The challengers say that suggests the two judges don't perform as well as their peers, but the incumbents, Anoka County Judge Nancy Logering and Sherburne County Judge Robert Varco, disagree. Varco and Logering, both appointed in 2000 by Gov. Jesse Ventura, said that even if the removal notice tallies are accurate, those numbers would be a very small percentage of the thousands of cases they handle each year.

Logering has been removed 174 times, second on the Anoka bench to Judge Michael Roith, with 195 removal notices filed since such records became available in March 2007. Varco had 54 removal notices, the most filed against the four judges serving in the Elk River courthouse since records became available in November 2006.

Anoka and Sherburne county courts are part of the sprawling, eight-county 10th Judicial District. Chief Judge Timothy Bloomquist said he questions the reliability of the computer-generated notice reports, some of which were inaccurate.

Sitting judges are seldom challenged, said Washington County Judge Susan Miles, vice president of the Minnesota District Judges Association. About 10 of roughly 100 state District Court judgeships up for election every two years have contested races because of an open seat or an attorney opposing an incumbent, she said. District judges serve six-year terms.

Logering, 50, is being challenged for the second time by Stellpflug, 48, a former chief public defender for the 10th Judicial District. This time he is endorsed by the Academy of Certified Trial Lawyers of Minnesota. Academy Dean Howard Helgen said he can recall only one other time the group endorsed a challenger out of about 35 endorsements made since 2004.

Helgen said he sends endorsement applicants to all contested judgeship candidates. If candidates reply, a committee checks their qualifications and talks to attorneys who have seen them perform in court. Helgen noted that Varco, Logering and Stellpflug returned endorsement questionnaires. Dehen didn't and so he wasn't considered.

Logering noted that Anoka and Sherburne County sheriffs have endorsed her. She and Varco were both endorsed by the Minnesota Women Lawyers Inc.

Judges receive removal notices for various, sometimes innocuous, reasons, said William Ward, the 10th District's chief public defender. "Attorneys may feel some judges are not open to their ideas on sentencing or motions," Ward said. "Or the attorney or his client may have had prior [unfavorable] experiences with a judge."

Logering said many of her removal notices are filed by public defenders in Ward's office. "I am a former prosecutor and some of them may think I am tough on crime for that reason," she said.

'We should not cut people off'

Dehen and Ward questioned Varco's treatment of attorneys in court. Varco "is a very intelligent man, but sometimes he gets frustrated with folks in front of him," Ward said. "He has to understand that our job has been hampered by a lack of staff." He said state budget cuts reduced his staff from 63 to 49 lawyers.

Varco said he has never intentionally been disrespectful to anyone in court. "That is obviously in the eye of the beholder," he said. "I am a proponent of efficiency. I think it is an insult to people if they are called to court and the attorneys have not met with them or are not prepared."

Logering and Varco noted that no attorney has ever filed formal complaints against them. A check with the state Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility found neither judge nor Stellpflug had any disciplinary action on their records. Dehen, however, received a state Supreme Court reprimand and was fined $900 in 2006.

Dehen said in a settlement with the state lawyers office that he violated a federal judge's order by misusing confidential discovery information in a Pampered Chef liability case he litigated. But he maintained the violation was unintentional because he misunderstood the judge's order. He also violated lawyer rules by soliciting clients in the same case without including the word "advertisement" in the letter.

"As a solo practitioner you can get tripped up and make mistakes," he said. "You learn from them and move on."