The Strib goes after Tom Emmer’s professional life in a hit piece today by Pat Doyle.

The piece, titled “Emmer’s Feisty Spirit Fuels Legal Fights”, relates four stories:

Emmer has mixed it up in civil cases and filed a report that led to a criminal case, court documents show. He has aggressively litigated some cases. His wrangling over money or other business matters is described in court documents, an ethics probe and interviews.

As opposed to the way the rest of the world behaves when swindled, dued and attacked?

The first incident related to an office manager that swindled over $7,000 from Emmer’s law office:

McElroy’s lawyer, Chad Throndset, wrote in one court document that Emmer was “scapegoating” her to justify the firing and “to cover up illegal and unethical business practices, client claims of illegal billing and legal malpractice, and to create a smoke screen.” Emmer called that accusation “unfounded and libelous” in one court document.

Three years after the case began, prosecutors agreed to “suspend prosecution” until Oct. 20, 2010, when the charges will be dismissed if she avoids similar charges, pays Emmer $14,146 and writes him a letter of apology. “The case was resolved with an order for full repayment of the moneys taken and an apology,” Emmer said in his written statement.

In other words, Emmer got redress from someone who’d swindled him.    Is that “feisty” or “temperamental”, or a victim’s right under our criminal justice system?

It’s Emmer 1, DFL/Strib 0.

Next – a landscaper sued Jacquie Emmer for shorting a payment for some landscaping work:

Emmer gave him $2,000 and said in his statement that the landscaper “overcharged for work.”

When Poppler took Emmer to small claims court to recover the remaining $1,237, Emmer sought $3,600 in attorney’s fees for his time in small claims court. Poppler didn’t back off.

In small claims court, District Judge Kathleen Mottl awarded Poppler his entire claim. She added that Emmer’s “request for reimbursement of ‘attorney’s fees’ is wholly inappropriate, as he represented himself.”

Emmer took his appeal to District Court, where his lawyer argued that he wasn’t responsible for the landscaping bill because his wife had initiated and modified the job.

Earlier, Mottl had disagreed with that notion. “She essentially did so as her husband’s agent,” she wrote.

But District Judge Dale Mossey ruled that Emmer was not responsible for his wife’s actions. Poppler said Jacquie Emmer has not paid the $1,237.

This bit leaves a slew of questions.  What were Emmer’s grounds for withholding the money – and I mean all of the grounds?  And why did the District Court toss the suit?

Emmer 1, Strib/DFL 0, one tie.

In another case, a woman sued Emmer in 1996 for a collision in which she’d been injured.  Emmer, it was claimed, ran a stop sign; Emmer claimed the sign was obscured.

Emmer’s attorney, Michael Schwartz, said the claims against the state and county for sign maintenance “served to protect the rights and safety of all motorists in the area.” He said all claims were settled.

So it’s Emmer 1, Strib/DFL 0, one tie, one “Get a life, he defended himself”.

Next:  Emmer sued someone for injuring him:

Emmer also sued a Dakota County man in 2003 for leg injuries Emmer said he received when the man’s vehicle struck him while he was standing in a driveway, according to court documents. Emmer claimed partial disability. The case went to mediation and Emmer won a $187,500 award. But the Dakota County man’s lawyer had difficulty getting Emmer to sign a release as part of the deal, court records show. After pressing for a year for Emmer to sign, the lawyer threatened to compel his signature. “Whether it be simple neglect, such neglect is inexcusable,” attorney Nicholas Klehr wrote in a court document. He said last week that the case was resolved to his client’s satisfaction.

“The claims were amicably and equitably resolved and the settlement was finalized without court involvement,” said Schwartz, who said selection of an annuity company to handle some of the payout delayed the process.

So it’s Emmer 1, Strib/DFL 0, one tie, one “Get a life, he defended himself”, and one “Gosh, legal proceedings taking a long time, notify the media…oh, wait you did!”

A client made an ethics claim against Emmer for a bill that’d caught him by surprise:

The director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility rejected the recommendation, saying that the rule doesn’t require regular written billing and that Emmer claimed he discussed the fee structure at the very beginning.

“Best practices would indicate that sending clients regular billing statements would be prudent in preventing situations like between Mr. Emmer and Mr. Ahlstrom,” the director added in the office’s written determination.

I’m not sure what percentage of lawyers get some kind of ethics complaint or another, but I’m told it’s rather high.

So it’s Emmer 2, Strib/DFL 0, one tie, one “Get a life, he defended himself”, and one “Gosh, legal proceedings taking a long time, notify the media…oh, wait you did!”

Finally – Emmer and a former law partner had a falling-out:

The dispute was settled. Lively said he and Emmer are barred from talking about the dispute because of a confidentiality agreement, but added, “It was just time to part ways. … Tom and I had been friends for a very, very long time and I really hold no animosity toward him at all.”

Said Emmer: “The case was resolved with the terms being honored.”

So it’s Emmer 2, Strib/DFL 0, one tie, one “Get a life, he defended himself”, one “Gosh, legal proceedings taking a long time, notify the media…oh, wait you did!”, and one “go figure, lawyers sueing each other, and how about some details?”

Can you see why the media wants to get at Emmer’s plan?

QUESTION:  Do you suppose Pat Doyle will cover this story?:

After a leave of absence, necessitated by health problems, from his position as a State Office Manager for Senator Dayton Brad Hanson was fired. He subsequently sued his former employer for discrimination on the basis of a disability and for failure to pay overtime compensation under the Congressional Accountability Act. Dayton argued, and continues to argue before the Supreme Court, that the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution grants him immunity from this action and therefore the suit must be dismissed. This case will turn on the issue of whether an administrative or personnel decision, such as firing an employee, is a legislative act within the meaning of the Clause.

Any bets?