Court case over legal fees to be public, judge rules

An upcoming trial that pits a lawyer against his former firm in a nasty dispute over fees will remain open to the public despite the firm's objections, Hennepin County District Judge Denise Reilly ruled Monday.

Reilly's order was prompted by the Star Tribune's request to intervene on the public's behalf. She also agreed to reevaluate whether documents in the case should remain secret.

Reilly concluded that Minnesota courts have recognized a common law right of access to court hearings and files, which can be overcome only by demonstrating "strong, countervailing" reasons in favor of secrecy.

The lawsuit involves the Minneapolis law firm of Heins Mills and Olson. A former partner claims the firm deprived him of his fair share of $103 million in legal fees from the settlement of a class-action suit against AOL Time Warner.

Nancy Barnes, the newspaper's editor, said Monday that she was pleased with Reilly's ruling. "I'm gratified the judge sided with us in this matter. We fought for this case to be open because we thought that there was a strong public interest in this particular case."

"But apart from this one case, we also wanted to take a strong stand for open courts," Barnes said. "Our government is built on a system of open courts, and we shouldn't tread on that right."

John Borger, the newspaper's attorney, called Reilly's opinion a strong decision in favor of public access that would be useful in the future.

Samuel Heins got $48 million in fees, and his wife, Stacey Mills, got $32 million. Former partner Brian Williams got $4 million. He sued, claiming the firm owed him more.

Paul Civello, an attorney for Heins Mills, declined to comment Monday, saying he hadn't seen the opinion. He referred a reporter to attorney Bill Pentelovitch, who could not be reached Monday afternoon.

Reilly acknowledged that she had effectively denied the public's right of access to court files by sealing much of the evidence.

She would not concede a constitutional right of access to the courts, but she said common law access to the courts does exist.

"The court finds that the specific public interest in this case together with the strong presumption of openness outweighs defendants' privacy concerns generally.