Eric Magnuson: an attorney who is always appealing

Listen to this article

Born: Morris, Ill., 1951

Education: University of Michigan; University of Minnesota, B.A., 1972; William Mitchell College of Law, J.D., cum laude, 1976

Bar Admission: 1976, Minnesota, Wisconsin, U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, U.S. Court of Appeals, 7th, 8th and 10th Circuits and U.S. Supreme Court

Professional Experience: Attorney, Rider Bennett Egan & Arundel, 1976-present (managing partner since 1999); adjunct professor of law, William Mitchell College of Law, 1978-87; law clerk, Minnesota Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert J. Sheran, 1976-77; law clerk, District Court Judge Douglas K. Amdahl, 1975-76

Bar Activities: Co-reporter, Minnesota Supreme Court Appellate Rules Advisory Committee, 1998-present; fellow, American Academy of Appellate Lawyers (president, 1998-99)

Family: wife, Katie, and four children

Law firms across the state anxiously waited last summer as the Minnesota Supreme Court considered whether state fraud statutes generally subject a law firm to treble damages for the misdeeds of one of the firm’s attorneys.

Some of those firms likely breathed a sigh of relief when the Supreme Court gave a somewhat restrictive reading of the statute, finding that the treble damages are only available if the fraud was committed with intent to deceive a court or party within the context of an action or judicial proceeding.

In Baker v. Ploetz, the Supreme Court overturned a Court of Appeals decision allowing treble damages to be assessed against a firm in an action brought by clients defrauded by one of its former attorneys in a real estate deal. The high court reasoned that multiple damages were not available for this type of fraud because it did not occur within the context of an action or judicial proceeding.

Representing the law firm in its appeal was Minneapolis attorney Eric J. Magnuson, one of the state’s best known appellate lawyers.

Magnuson, in the characteristically philosophical style of an appellate lawyer, says that while he was pleased with the result of the case, he was disappointed that the court declined to address some of what he considered to be the crucial issues of the Baker case.

Several of the issues raised by Magnuson in the Baker case have also been raised in the appeals of another case that has gained wide publicity: the lawsuits against disbarred attorney David Moskal and his former firm, Schwebel, Goetz & Sieben.

Moskal is currently incarcerated for pilfering more than $2 million in client funds. His former firm faces two lawsuits — one on behalf of a class of defrauded clients and one with an individual plaintiff who elected to proceed outside the class — seeking treble damages, fee forfeiture and punitive damages in connection with the thefts. The cases, which are scheduled for trial this month, will involve many of the same issues and arguments that were raised during the appeals of the Baker case, including the issue of whether the state attorney-fraud statute is unconstitutional.

“I think that the treble damages statute is unconstitutional,” Magnuson says. “If a statute limiting the amount of attorneys fees an attorney can claim in an administrative proceeding is an unconstitutional intrusion on the power of the judiciary to regulate the attorney-client relationship …, then there can’t be any question that the Legislature’s effort to impose treble damages for an attorney’s misconduct with his client and the court is unconstitutional. The Legislature could decide that anybody who makes a fraudulent misrepresentation to the court is subject to treble damages, but to regulate the relationship between the lawyer and the client and the lawyer and the court [is unconstitutional]. Those issues have to be resolved.”

Hard work or luck?

Magnuson says he decided on a career in law almost by default.

Magnuson had no family background in law, and was among the first in his immediate family to attend college. Although Magnuson did not enter college with the intention of going on to law school, his undergraduate major nevertheless propelled him toward his legal career.

“I earned a bachelor of arts degree in history, which is one of the most useless degrees you can get,” jokes Magnuson. “You can either, as my sister did, get a master’s degree, or you can find something else to do.”

Magnuson’s career in law took off after one of his cousins encouraged him to take the LSAT.

“I just said, ‘Ok, I’ll do it,’” recalls Magnuson. “I’ve always been able to take tests well, and I got a high score [on the LSAT], so I went to law school.”

Magnuson notes that many people go to law school because they don’t know what else to do, but sometimes even when they do well a career in law is not a good fit for them.

“But I found that I really liked the law,” says Magnuson. “There’s something orderly about [the law] and I [have] a good sense of order. It just fit. Once I got [to law school] I realized it was a good choice.”

During his first year of law school, Magnuson worked in a bar and drove a truck. He came about his first legal job as a judicial clerk for Judge Douglas K. Amdahl, who was then the Chief Judge for Hennepin County, in a rather unusual way.

“One of my friends from law school said I should go get a job clerking because it’s really a good job — it’s soft [work] and it pays well,” Magnuson recalls. “So I printed up a resume and I started at the lowest floor of the Hennepin County Government Center that had judges on it over a noon hour. I walked around and tried to find a judge who would talk to me and give me a job. I didn’t know that you weren’t supposed to do it that way. [Judge] Amdahl was sitting in his chambers eating lunch at his desk out of a brown paper bag — which he did a lot — and we hit it off. He liked the fact that I was driving a truck and working at a bar and he hired me. I didn’t realize at that time that I had been hired by someone who was widely regarded as the best trial judge in the state of Minnesota. I can’t tell you how lucky I consider myself to have been able to get a job working with him. I didn’t know him from Adam.”

Magnuson later clerked for Minnesota Supreme Court Justice Robert Sheran. “I don’t know how I got so lucky to have [Justice Sheran] hire me. [Amdahl and Sheran] are two of the most outstanding people in the law in the history of this state — and I got to work with them! I was really blessed,” says Magnuson.

The right fit

One of the reasons Magnuson sought out judicial clerkships was because he initially planned on a career as a trial lawyer. He joined Rider, Bennett, Egan & Arundel in 1976 as a trial attorney. However, after trying 20 or 30 cases, Magnuson decided that appellate work was a better fit for him.

“The chaos and the spontaneity of trial work just drove me nuts,&
#8221; he explains. “I have to be more in control. A lot of people don’t believe this, but I’m not terribly combative by nature. I tend to be a conciliator, so [trial work] just wasn’t my cup of tea.”

In 1983, when the Minnesota Court of Appeals was being planned, Magnuson had been practicing law for six years and knew that he did not want to continue doing trials. He volunteered to get to know the people at the new Court of Appeals and handle his firm’s appellate work.

“I did [the appellate work] on top of my trial work, and the trial work just kind of faded,” observes Magnuson. “Some people say you make your own luck. Maybe I’m not being fair to myself by saying that I was in the right place at the right time, because I worked hard. But [becoming an appellate lawyer] just fit and I really like doing appeals. It provides the order that I need, and it has the intellectual challenge that I like. … What I bring to an appeal is the ability to break a case down to its important parts and then put those in the right perspective. It’s a process I really enjoy.”

According to Magnuson, the team mentality of the Rider Bennett Egan & Arundel law firm has allowed him to excel as an appellate lawyer. The way the firm is set up, there is no incentive for attorneys to follow their cases from trial through the appellate process, he states.

“Really excellent and capable trial attorneys could say to their clients, ‘I’ve been your trial attorney, but I have an excellent young appellate lawyer who will handle your appeal,’” says Magnuson. “We don’t have my clients and your clients, we have our clients. It’s a very collective effort.”

A full plate

In March 2000, Magnuson was awarded the William Mitchell Distinguished Alumni Award in recognition of his demonstration of high values and ethical standards in achieving professional distinction through his contribution and leadership in the profession. Throughout the course of his career, Magnuson has been vocal in numerous organizations, including national and local bar organizations.

“When I join an organization it’s very hard for me to keep my mouth shut, and if you talk a lot in an organization you tend to be picked to do things,” he modestly says. “If I get picked to do things, I do them well. I decided a while ago that I wasn’t going to join an organization unless I would [have a leadership role such as president or chairman. … When you join an organization], you’ve got to contribute, and if you’re going to contribute you might as well get credit for it.”

Magnuson has enjoyed his role as president of the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers (AAAL), a national organization of more than 200 lawyers who have specialized in appellate litigation for at least 15 years.

As one of the “perks” of that position, Magnuson observed several U.S. Supreme Court arguments and had dinner with Justice Stephen Breyer of the U.S. Supreme Court.

“That was really fun,” recalls Magnuson. “But again, it’s the people you get to know. There are so many really interesting, diverse people in [the AAAL].”

Magnuson has also been active in efforts to improve court procedural rules. Magnuson says that rule drafting has exposed him to areas of the law that he wouldn’t normally see in his own practice.

“My practice is almost exclusively civil, split in federal and state courts,” he notes. “But it doesn’t include family law or juvenile law or child protection law or certain other types of law. To work with … really great leaders from different areas of law is really enjoyable.”

Magnuson became involved in the Minnesota Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules in 1997, when the rules committee was being reconstituted. According to Magnuson, the court was looking for some new ideas, and his friend David Herr, who has been a reporter for a variety of rules committees for the Minnesota Supreme Court, suggested that he and Magnuson become co-reporters.

Magnuson was involved in drafting the Supreme Court’s recently adopted rule that measures brief length by word count as opposed to the number of pages.

“It may seem like a small thing to go to word counts as the measure of a brief’s length as opposed to page length, but it’s a really significant change because it frees up the writer of the brief from rigidly posed structural constraints,” says Magnuson.

According to Magnuson, one of the problems with the page-length rule was that it “tempted” attorneys to use a smaller type size, which is difficult for judges to read. In order to conserve space, lawyers would be reluctant to include pictures or diagrams in the body of the brief, where they are oftentimes more useful, and instead place them in a less convenient appendix, he added. The new word-count rule allows much more flexibility, which in turn makes briefs easier for a judge to absorb, says Magnuson.

“Appeals are about distilling complicated cases into their essence, and then packaging them in a format that is easily ingested by the appellate judge,” Magnuson observes. The word-count rule allows attorneys to communicate more effectively with the judge, he adds.

Magnuson has also served as chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) Appellate Practice Committee of the Litigation Section, chair of the ABA Appellate Advocacy Committee of the Tort and Insurance Practice Section and chair of the Minnesota Defense Lawyers Association. He also lectures frequently at state and national seminars on appellate practice and is the author of “Minnesota Practice: Appellate Rules Annotated” (West) and “Minnesota Practice — Methods of Practice,” The Appellate Process (West).

An open invitation

In addition to his bar-related activities both in and out of court, Magnuson enjoys sharing his expertise with other lawyers.

“I get half a dozen calls per week from lawyers all over the state who just need to talk something out,” says Magnuson. “Mostly it’s an appellate question, but sometimes it’s a procedural question or an ethical issue. Some of [the people who call me] I know well, some of them I’ve never met before but they’ve seen me lecture. Often they will start out by saying, ‘I want to buy an hour of your time.’ I tell them, ‘It’s too cumbersome for me to sell you an hour of my time. I would have to open a file and do a conflicts check. So let’s just chat, colleague to colleague. Don’t tell me anything that’s confidential, but let’s talk, maybe over a cup of coffee. You can call me any time you want and I’ll find some time to talk to you.’”

Magnuson says he really enjoys advising other lawyers. “I think that’s the best service I can give to the community,” he says. “That is the essence of the profession.”

Balance

One of the most challenging issues for Magnuson is balancing the needs of his family with the needs of his partners. He says he is thankful for the support given him from both fronts.

Advances in technology have also helped Magnuson to achieve balance in his life.

“With technology being what it is today — and I’m not sure whether this is a curse or a blessing — I have the a
bility to work as effectively at home as I do at the office,” he observes. “So while I might put the standard 45 hours in the office, I may spend 55 hours a week working on firm [matters].”

Magnuson became managing partner in May 1999, and his term concluded at the end of 2000. Magnuson observed that there are certain frustrations that accompany the rewards of managing a large law firm.

“When you’re the managing partner of a 120-lawyer law firm, there’s very little time to do your client’s work,” he says. “My wife observed that over the last year and a half I’ve been working a lot of Saturdays and Sundays, which I hadn’t done for a long time.”

Although he has enjoyed his involvement in various law-related groups, Magnuson looks forward to “throttling back” in the upcoming year.

“I’ve forgotten how much I enjoy just being a lawyer, and not being president of something or in charge of something,” he explains. “I enjoy just sitting down and writing an appellate brief. That’s why I’m an appellate lawyer. [My goal for this next year is to] throttle back a little bit and enjoy practicing law,” he said.

Magnuson also looks forward to renewing his involvement with the Lion’s Club and spending time fishing on the Mississippi River. “I’ve been a lawyer for a long time, and I do understand that there is life outside of the law,” he says.