“I believe that doing pro bono work is a duty that comes with the privilege of being a lawyer. Recognizing the reality that many people cannot afford legal representation and doing our part to address that problem by offering our legal services for free is one of the most direct ways that we can make a difference.”
The Center for Pro Bono spoke with Erica Holzer, Partner at Maslon LLP, about her recent pro bono victory on behalf of a same-sex couple in a paternity suit with their sperm donor. In the case, the appellate court sided with mothers Julianna and Catherine Sheridan, concluding that the lower court wrongfully denied their motion to dismiss the paternity suit, and that the sperm donor was precluded from bringing a paternity action for the child under Minnesota law.
What is the background of the case and how did you get involved?
My clients, the Sheridans, used assisted reproductive technology (ART) to conceive their daughter. The couple used a known sperm donor with the understanding that the donor would be part of the child’s life. People decide to use known sperm donors for a variety of reasons, including wanting the child to have access to genetic and health information. When their daughter was five years old, the Sheridans were served with a paternity action from the donor. They were completely caught off guard and were understandably very scared because they didn’t know what was going to happen.
The Sheridans worked with a family law attorney to dismiss the paternity action. However, the family court referee denied the motion to dismiss. I knew about the case and offered to handle the appeal pro bono, given my experience in appellate law and my interest in ART law and legal protections for same-sex couples. This was a case of first impression and would have a broad impact on all families who have used sperm or egg donors to conceive children. On appeal, we got a full reversal, and the court of appeals remanded the case, ordering the case to be dismissed with prejudice.