(a) Scope. This rule applies to any person whom a judge appoints to assist
the court in a matter. Appointees under this rule may include, for example, special
masters, receivers, referees, trustees, commissioners, court-appointed experts,
investigators, mediators, and arbitrators.
(b) Conflicts of Interest.
(1) If an appointee becomes aware of any circumstances that might
constitute, or might reasonably appear to constitute, a conflict of interest,
the appointee must immediately inform the appointing judge of all facts
relevant to those circumstances. The appointing judge must then determine
what, if any, action should be taken.
(2) A “conflict of interest” includes any set of circumstances that affects,
or might reasonably appear to affect, an appointee’s ability to act impartially
in the matter for which he or she was appointed.
(c) Complaints.
(1) A complaint about an appointee’s conduct must be made in writing
to the appointing judge. The complaint must include a detailed description
of the facts and circumstances giving rise to the complaint and must
expressly identify the statute, rule, regulation, canon, or other authority on
which the complaint is based.
(2) The judge must permit the appointee and the parties to respond to
the complaint.
(3) The judge must review the complaint, determine whether the
appointee committed misconduct, and decide what action, if any, to take.
The judge may take appropriate action to protect the rights and interests of
anyone who may have been affected by an appointee’s misconduct.
(d) Court-Initiated Discipline. An appointing judge may, at any time,
independently review an appointee’s conduct and take appropriate action.
[Adopted effective January 3, 2000; amended May 14, 2013; amended November 18,
2013]
2013 Advisory Committee’s Note to LR 83.13
The language of LR 83.13 has been amended in accordance with the restyling process described
in the 2012 Advisory Committee’s Preface on Stylistic Amendments.
After the May 2013 amendments, the language in subsection (b) was further amended to clarify
that an appointee is obligated to inform the judge of potential conflicts of interests when circumstances
“might reasonably appear” to affect an appointee’s ability to act impartially.
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.
119
