Judicial candidate: Robert (Bob) Steigauf

Talk about it

Robert (Bob) Steigauf

Age: 53

Hometown: Woodbury

Family: Married; three adult children.

Education: William Mitchell College of Law; University of St. Thomas.

Work experience: I am a trial attorney and senior partner at Sjoberg and Tebelius P.S. in Woodbury. From 1981 until 2006, when my firm merged with S&J, I was in private practice in Woodbury. My work experience included transactional work, drafting business documents, incorporating businesses, residential and commercial real estate, and drafting wills and trusts, to name a few. My trial (courtroom) experience included civil litigation, representing both plaintiffs and defendants, criminal defense, divorce and family law, juvenile matters, landlord/tenant and other real estate matters, personal injury and workers compensation cases, probate and estate matters, guardianship and conservatorships, tax matters, veterans affairs and zoning, to name a few.

1. What makes you the best candidate?

My 30 years of both transactional and trial experience has prepared me to be the best candidate for judge. No other candidate can match my experience and no other candidate has such extensive experience in all of the areas of law your new judge will preside over. I won’t be learning the job as I go. If your case comes before me you won’t need to worry about whether your judge knows the law and the rules of court. My experience comes with the right judicial temperament; integrity is my calling card, humility my virtue.

2. How would you as a judge suggest the court system respond to limited or reduced state funding?

I believe this question is a bit premature. I am not a judge yet hence, uninformed about funding allocation within the court system. I don’t know what options are available. I do know that the courts are increasingly crowded and that trend is expected to continue. There is no mystery to it: more people and more claims require more staff. Court staff has been cut rather than increased.

Justice delayed is justice denied. It is simply not good enough (and certainly not legal under our Constitution) to say that if seven out of 10 get justice that is the best we can do.

3. Do you believe judicial candidates should be allowed to discuss political views and be involved in non-judicial politics?

This is a First Amendment issue. The question, when rephrased, is, ‘Should a judicial candidate’s First Amendment rights of free speech and assembly be denied or suspended because she is running for office? The intent of the prohibition was to “preserve the independence of a judicial office” and avoid any “public perception” that the candidate’s political views or associations might interfere with his ability to be unbiased. I can’t think of any reason why judicial candidates should be deprived of their First Amendment rights. Judicial candidates were not afforded any “due process” but merely expected to voluntarily surrender their most sacred rights in order to run for office.