Lawyer oversight board again tells Minnesota Supreme Court it should replace director

An oversight board has again recommended that the Minnesota Supreme Court seek another leader for the state agency that oversees lawyer discipline, two years after justices rejected the board's similar advice.

In a letter sent to justices on Monday, the board overseeing the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility sharply criticized its director, Susan Humiston, saying she was responsible for a decline in the quality of work handled by the agency. The board also faulted her for trying to "shift responsibility" for recent problems onto others.

"In sum, the board believes that [the agency] is being poorly managed, and believes that the director's poor management is hindering the office's important work," the board said in the letter.

The letter followed a meeting of the board Friday when Humiston informed members of her efforts to replace yet another attorney at the troubled agency. Taylor Mehr, who joined the agency in July, quit last month after complaining of several instances of unprofessional conduct by Humiston, according to colleagues and others who were briefed on her departure.

Since Humiston was hired to run the agency in 2016, 15 prosecutors have quit their jobs, with most of them citing a toxic work environment. By contrast, eight lawyers left OLPR in the prior 17 years. Former staff members have cited multiple instances of bullying and unprofessional conduct, including rudeness, condescension, insults, yelling, micromanagement and berating them in front of colleagues.

Humiston has denied mistreating employees, saying in a written response that she works every day to ensure a "collaborative and respectful work environment."

The office typically handles more than 1,000 complaints against Minnesota lawyers each year, but more than 100 complaints have languished for more than a year without any action being taken, records show. The Supreme Court has ultimate authority over OLPR's operations.

In December, Associate Justice Natalie Hudson told members of the oversight board that they were not to consider the staff departures in their review of Humiston, saying that subject will be handled by state Court Administrator Jeff Shorba, who would be interviewing current and former staffers as part of Humiston's performance review.

The Supreme Court stripped the oversight board of its authority over personnel in 2021 after reappointing Humiston to a new two-year term over the board's objections in 2020.

Despite the court's promise to interview former staff members, at least two attorneys who left in the past year told the Star Tribune they have yet to speak to investigators. Two other former attorneys said they spent just five minutes on the phone discussing their departures with a court official, describing the conversations as perfunctory and superficial.

"I wonder how thorough of an investigation they are doing if they are not speaking to everyone who left," said former attorney Siama Brand, who quit in late 2020 but has yet to be interviewed about her complaints regarding Humiston. "I find that kind of strange."

A spokeswoman for the Supreme Court declined to address the criticism.

"The Supreme Court is conducting a thorough evaluation of the Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility as part of the re-appointment process," spokeswoman Jodi Boyne said in a written response to questions. "That review is proceeding. We have no further comment at this time."

Humiston declined an interview request. But in a written response to questions, she said she respects the "reappointment process that the Supreme Court is undertaking."

She added, "I continue to lead the office with integrity. I'm proud of what the office continues to accomplish under my leadership, and remain focused on supporting our hardworking team as we work to protect the public and strengthen the legal profession."

In its letter to the court, the oversight board noted that Humiston "raised the issue of personnel turnover as a factor contributing to these problems," including delays in case processing. The board noted that the agency's backlog remains largely unchanged despite a huge drop in new cases during the pandemic.

The oversight board said members were concerned that some case files demonstrated "inadequate investigation" and "nonexistent analysis of important legal questions." A majority of board members also faulted Humiston for her "apparent failure to effectively delegate," noting that she told members she had reviewed all 500 open cases. "That appears to be impossible," the board said in its letter.

The board also blasted Humiston's failure to complete work on a new procedural manual, despite more than two years of work. The manual guides lawyers who handle discipline cases, including volunteers who help screen cases at panel meetings around the state.

According to former OLPR director William Wernz, the manual has not been updated since 2007.

"The situation regarding the panel manual shows a complete inability of the current director to take on and complete a project that has been widely recognized as of great importance," Wernz told the Star Tribune.