Attorney Profiles

Joe has practiced Indian law for over thirteen years and represents the Firm's clients in a broad array of matters. He practices in the areas of general litigation at all levels of tribal, federal and state court systems as well as tribal courts in Minnesota, Wisconsin, North Dakota and Michigan, well as administrative forums on behalf of tribal governments and officials. Joe also represents his clients in areas including real property, intellectual property, legislative affairs and lobbying, general business and finance, tribal regulation and Indian child welfare. He also has served as in-house tribal general counsel.

Joe represents tribal gaming regulatory authorities in all aspects of tribal gaming regulation, including internal governance and regulatory structure, compliance and enforcement efforts and litigation and administrative proceedings relating to those activities. He also represents clients in land acquisition and trust transfer efforts and has assisted a client in securing federal legislation directing an interagency transfer of nearly 1300 acres of land, restoring it to tribal ownership after it was lost over 70 years ago. Joe also assist clients in clearing and protecting their intellectual property, including service and trademarks, and has been active in enforcing his client's rights against infringing users.

For over a decade, Joe has represented his tribal clients in numerous Indian child welfare proceedings at the tribal, state and federal trial and appellate levels, both as parties and as amici curiae, and continues that practice presently.

Joe has taught Indian law at the William Mitchell College of Law and has presented and lectured at numerous continuing legal education courses. He is a special member of the Minnesota Indian Bar Association.

Joe's Indian-law experience includes:

Klammer v. The Lower Sioux Convenience Store, 535 N.W.2d 379 (Minn.Ct.App. 1995). Established that Minnesota state courts must defer to tribal courts in cases arising on a reservation where the tribe has established a court that has jurisdiction over the matter.

Bruce H. Lien Company v. The Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, 93 F.3d 1412 (8th Cir. 1995). Established that the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act does not overcome the doctrine of comity and mandatory deference to tribal courts, and where there is a tribal law challenge to a gaming management agreement that matter must be first litigated in the tribal court.

Prairie Island Indian Community v. Treasure Island Corporation, Consolidated Cancellation No. 28, 126 (TTAB 1998). Represents his tribal client in seventeen consolidated cancellation proceedings before the United States Patent and Trademark office wherein the Community seeks to cancel trademarks held by the Corporation that infringe on the Community's intellectual property rights.

Johnson v. Child Welfare Office of the Prairie Island Indian Community, CA-06-05 (Prairie Island Ct. App. Feb. 15, 2006). Established Community's extraterritorial jurisdiction over its members in need of protection or services, confirming the Community's jurisdiction over two tribal member children residing in the state of Florida.

Webster, et al. v. The Oneida Gaming Commission, Cocket No. 02-AC-025,9 O.N.R. 3-35 (2003). Affirmed tribal gaming commission's revocation of four individual's gaming licenses for malfeasance.