(a)      Scope of Rule. The provisions of this rule shall be applicable to any person who is appointed by a judge to serve as an aide or resource to the court in a particular matter or collection of matters, including but not limited to special masters, receivers, referees, trustees, commissioners, court appointed experts, investigators, mediators and arbitrators, (referred to herein as “appointees”).

 

(b)       Disclosure of Conflicts.    Whenever any appointee becomes aware of any circumstances that may constitute, or appear to constitute, a conflict of interest, the appointee shall immediately inform the appointing judge of all facts relevant to such circumstances.  For purposes of this rule, a “conflict of interest” includes any set of circumstances that affects, or appears to affect, the appointee’s ability to act impartially in the matter for which he or she was appointed.  The appointing judge shall determine what, if any, action should be taken with respect to any conflict of interest information reported by an appointee.

 

(c)       Complaints Against Court Appointees. Any complaint about the conduct of an appointee shall be made in writing to the appointing judge describing the specific alleged misconduct by the appointee.  Any such complaint should include a detailed description of the facts and circumstances giving rise to the complaint, and should expressly identify the legal or ethical basis, (statute, rule, regulation, canon, or other authority) for the complaint. The appointee and all parties shall have the opportunity to respond to the complaint. Nothing herein shall prevent a judge from independently reviewing the conduct of his or her court appointee at any time and taking such action with respect to the appointee as the judge may deem appropriate.

 

(d)       Resolution of Complaints.  The appointing judge shall review any complaint against an appointee and shall determine whether there actually has been any misconduct by the appointee, and, if so, what, if any, action should be taken in response to such misconduct.  The appointing judge may also take such action as he or she deems appropriate to protect and preserve the rights and interests of any party who may have been affected by any misconduct by an appointee.

 

[Adopted effective January 3, 2000]

 

1999 Advisory Committee’s Note to LR 83.13

 

The Committee concluded that allegations of misconduct by court appointees will most often arise out of either actual or apparent conflicts of interest.  For this reason, the rule expressly requires appointees to disclose any such conflicts to the appointing judge.  The Committee further concluded that it would not be feasible or necessary to develop a comprehensive code of ethical conduct for all court appointees.  Such appointees will be expected to follow the broad moral and ethical principles that guide the conduct of lawyers and judicial officers.

 

The Committee recognizes that judges must retain the authority to manage and control their cases.  The automatic assignment of an “outside judge” to consider complaints against a court appointee could adversely affect that authority.  If a party or the appointing judge believes that some other judge should consider a complaint against an appointee, the general rules regarding recusal would be applicable.

 

This rule confirms the appointing judge’s authority to act on a complaint of misconduct by an appointee.  The rule expressly recognizes the judge’s authority to (a) preserve the integrity of the court by taking appropriate disciplinary action against the appointee, and (b) protect litigants whose interests may have been adversely affected by the misconduct of an appointee.  A judge’s response to misconduct by an appointee may include, without being limited to, termination of the appointment, imposition of sanctions, application of the power of contempt, recommending to other judges that the appointee should be barred from future appointments in this District, initiation of attorney disciplinary proceedings in this District pursuant to L.R. 83.6(e), referring the matter to the Minnesota Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility, or referring the matter to the United States Attorney or the Minnesota Attorney General to consider criminal charges.  Complaints regarding fee issues (in cases involving special masters) should be raised and addressed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 53.  Any party who is dissatisfied with a judge’s action on a complaint against an appointee would retain the same right to appeal that exists for any other action taken by a district court judge.