When the Prosecutor Came from the Defense Firm
The Leonard Simich dismissal presents a conflict-of-interest question Carlton County must answer
By Carlton County Watchdogs
Carlton County Jail booking photograph of Leonard L. Simich following his October 17, 2024 arrest. The criminal case arising from the incident was later dismissed by the Carlton County Attorney’s Office. Source: Carlton County Sheriff Kelly Lake.
Corruption does not always arrive with a suitcase of cash or a written agreement.
Sometimes it begins more quietly -- when public power overlaps with private relationships, when conflicts are handled behind closed doors, and when government officials refuse to provide the documentation necessary to assure the public that justice was administered impartially.
That does not mean every unexplained relationship proves corruption. It means that public officials have a duty to disclose, document, and explain relationships that could reasonably call their decisions into question.
The dismissal of the criminal charges against Leonard Simich presents precisely that kind of situation.
According to the dismissal filing in the criminal proceeding against Simich, Assistant Carlton County Attorney Amy E. Voss was the prosecutor associated with the decision to dismiss the case.
The defense attorney representing Simich was Marsh Halberg, founder of Halberg Criminal Defense and former boss of Amy E Voss.
What Carlton County residents were apparently not told was that Voss had previously worked for that same criminal-defense firm.
That fact is not speculation. It appears in records produced by Carlton County itself.
Voss’s own employment application identifies Halberg Criminal Defense
On July 14, 2022, Amy Voss applied for an assistant county attorney position with Carlton County.
In the employment-history section of her application, Voss identified her employer as Halberg Criminal Defense, her position as Associate Attorney, and her period of employment as January 2021 through “Present.”
She described her responsibilities as including:
“Advised a large client base regarding pending criminal charges, possible outcomes, and potential resolutions.”
She also stated that she received and assessed evidence, developed case strategies, negotiated criminal resolutions, and served as second-chair counsel in a criminal trial.
In her accompanying cover letter, Voss wrote:
“I currently work in private practice in the Twin Cities as an associate attorney with Halberg Criminal Defense.”
These statements establish that Voss was not merely an administrative employee or someone with an incidental connection to the firm. She practiced criminal defense there and participated in the evaluation and resolution of criminal cases.
Halberg’s website continued to identify Voss as an associate attorney
The employment application establishes Voss’s relationship with Halberg Criminal Defense in 2022.
Another document raises a more recent -- and potentially more troubling -- question.
A copy of a Halberg Criminal Defense webpage preserved on June 9, 2026, described the firm’s legal team and stated:
“The team is rounded out by associate attorneys Lucas Dawson, Zach Graham and Amy Voss.”
The webpage carried a 2026 copyright notice and was printed on June 9, 2026.
To be precise, this proves that Halberg Criminal Defense’s website continued to identify Voss as an associate attorney on that date.
The listing could have been outdated. But an outdated listing does not end the inquiry. It creates additional questions:
When did Voss’s employment with Halberg Criminal Defense actually end?
Why did the firm continue to publicly identify her as one of its attorneys years after she reportedly entered government service?
Did Carlton County know about the listing?
Did Voss ask Halberg Criminal Defense to remove her name?
Did the County Attorney’s Office investigate whether Voss had any professional relationship, access to information, financial connection, or continuing obligation involving the firm?
Those questions are not accusations. They are basic questions that any responsible public office should be prepared to answer.
Where is the conflict check?
Government law offices should maintain procedures for identifying conflicts before assigning prosecutors to cases. Minnesota’s ethical rules expressly recognize the need for reasonable conflict-checking procedures and warn that ignorance caused by a failure to establish those procedures is not an excuse.
For the Simich prosecution, the public deserves to know:
When did Amy Voss’s employment with Halberg Criminal Defense begin and end?
Did Voss ever receive information concerning Simich, members of his family, his attorney, or any substantially related dispute?
Did Carlton County perform a written conflict check before assigning Voss to the case?
Was Voss screened from any portion of the investigation or prosecution?
What evidence supported that decision?
Was the matter reviewed by an independent county attorney, the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office, or another outside prosecutor?
Was the alleged victim informed of Voss’s prior relationship with Halberg Criminal Defense before the dismissal?
What explanation does Halberg Criminal Defense have for continuing to identify Voss as an associate attorney on its website in June 2026?
Straightforward answers supported by records could resolve many of these concerns.
The absence of those records would raise more concerns -- not fewer.
Prosecutorial discretion cannot become unreviewable discretion
Prosecutors possess enormous authority. They determine what charges to bring, what evidence to present, what resolutions to offer, and whether a prosecution will continue at all.
That discretion is necessary. But discretion without transparency can become favoritism, and favoritism concealed behind governmental secrecy creates conditions in which corruption can flourish.
Minnesota’s rules recognize that government-lawyer conflicts require particular care because governmental authority must never be used to provide a special advantage to a former private client. The rules do not prohibit attorneys from moving into public service. They require public lawyers to protect their independence, avoid prohibited conflicts, and employ appropriate safeguards.
The issue is therefore larger than Amy Voss.
The issue is whether the Carlton County Attorney’s Office had functioning procedures to identify this relationship, evaluate it, document it, and protect the prosecution from actual or apparent influence.
This is not a demand for a conviction
Carlton County Watchdogs is not arguing that Leonard Simich was required to be convicted. Though the charges of assault appear to have been ignored by the County Attorney’s Office and Voss. Why no prosecution?
Every accused person is presumed innocent. Prosecutors may dismiss charges when evidence is insufficient, when witnesses are unavailable, when legal defects exist, or when the interests of justice genuinely support dismissal.
But when a prosecutor previously worked for the same defense firm representing the accused, the dismissal must be handled with exceptional transparency.
Especially when Simich openly admitted assault.
An independent prosecutor could have reviewed the evidence.
Another assistant county attorney could have handled the matter.
The County Attorney’s Office could have created a written conflict-screening memorandum.
The County could have disclosed the relationship and explained the precautions taken.
Whether any of those safeguards occurred remains unknown.
The public is entitled to proof, not assurances
Carlton County residents should not be required to blindly trust that no conflict affected the Simich dismissal.
The County should release:
Voss’s official employment commencement date and any outside-employment disclosures;
the verified date on which her association with Halberg Criminal Defense ended;
the conflict-check and screening records relating to the Simich prosecution;
records identifying the officials who participated in the dismissal decision;
the written factual and legal basis for the dismissal, subject to legitimate legal restrictions; and
records showing whether an outside prosecutor reviewed the matter.
If a proper conflict analysis occurred, releasing the documentation would protect Voss, the County Attorney’s Office, and the legitimacy of the dismissal.
If no such analysis occurred, the public deserves to know that as well.
Our position
The existing documents do not (immediately) prove bribery, a secret agreement, or criminal misconduct by Amy Voss, Halberg Criminal Defense, or Leonard Simich. But something really smells bad!
They do prove that Voss worked as a criminal-defense attorney for Marsh Halberg at Halberg Criminal Defense before becoming an assistant county attorney.
They also prove that Halberg Criminal Defense’s website continued to publicly identify her as an associate attorney on June 9, 2026.
When a former attorney from a criminal-defense firm exercises prosecutorial authority in a case involving that firm, the public is entitled to a documented explanation.
An unexplained conflict is not conclusive proof of corruption. But, again, it doesn’t seem to pass the smell test.
But secrecy, undisclosed relationships, and unreviewable discretion are the soil in which corruption grows.
Carlton County Watchdogs will continue seeking the records, asking the questions, and publishing the answers.
Public authority belongs to the public.