Ethics Watch 1st Quarter 2025

Professional Conduct Resources

The Right Thing

Code of Conduct

1st Quarter 2025 Ethics Decisions

Brady/Giglio/Rosario & Other Discovery Issues

1st Dept

People v Rivera 2025 NY Slip Op 00731 (1st Dept 2/6/25) – “Defendant’s Brady claim regarding an additional lawsuit against [police officer-witness], which was discovered after defendant’s conviction, is outside the record before us and unreviewable on his direct appeal (see People v Teran, 172 AD3d 447, 449 [1st Dept 2019], lv denied 33 NY3d 1109 [2019]). Moreover, the record does not reflect that the prosecutor had actual or constructive knowledge of this additional lawsuit before trial and the officer’s personal pre-trial knowledge of the allegations could not be imputed to the prosecutor, who had no duty to inquire about the allegations or to search the dockets in every federal or state court in New York for complaints against their police witnesses (People v Garrett, 23 NY3d 878, 888-891 [2014]).”
Note: This defendant’s conviction predates the January 1, 2020 effective date of CPL Article 245.

2d Dept

In camera review of alleged Brady material not required

People v Silverstein, 2025 NY Slip Op 01395 (2d Dept 3/12/25) – “The defendant contends that an in camera review of the People’s file was necessary because the People failed to disclose certain Brady material or Rosario material…. However, the defendant failed to articulate a factual basis for this assertion…. The People’s redaction of the names of the defendant’s patients whom the People did not intend to call as witnesses and whose care was not at issue did not provide a sufficient factual basis.”


CPL 30.30 motion to dismiss for discovery violation denied

People v Sheard, 2025 NY Slip Op 01394 (2d Dept 3/12/25) – The People established that the 111-day period between October 12, 2022 and January 31, 2023 should be excluded from the speedy trial period because it comprised reasonable periods of delay resulting from pretrial motions made or intended to be made by the defendant and the codefendant and the periods during which such matters were under consideration by the court (see CPL 30.30[4][a], [d]). The court also held that, assuming the People failed to comply with discovery obligations, the defendant failed to identify any prejudice that he suffered by virtue of such failures (see CPL 245.80[1][a]; [2]).

But see People v Serrano, 2025 NY Slip Op 00338 (2d Dept 1/22/25) – App. Div. invalidated COC and concluded that CPL 30.30 required dismissal of the indictment. Key takeaways:

  1. People failed to demonstrate exercise of due diligence;
  2. People failed to contest that discoverable material existed;
  3. People failed to preserve alternative bases for time not being chargeable to prosecution

3d Dept

People v. Sturgill 2025 NY Slip Op 01260 (3d Dept 3/6/25) – Defendant contended that the prosecution violated Brady by failing to disclose all the victim’s prior convictions. The document which defendant submitted to establish the prior convictions contained a disclaimer that it “may not be 100% accurate or complete” and that the information may be used “as a starting point for your own due diligence and investigation.” The document also contained a statement that the preparer of the document “didn’t find any likely criminal records for the [victim] but [it] did find some that COULD belong to the [victim].” Most of the convictions listed on the document reported traffic violations which are not criminal convictions which can be used for impeachment. Even if such convictions were the victim’s convictions, they could not have been used for impeachment and there was no reasonable probability that timely disclosure would have changed the verdict.  

4th Dept

People’s 2019 SOR was sufficient and sanctions imposed for later discovery violations were the proper remedy

People v Perry, 2025 NY Slip Op 01733 (4th Dept 3/21/2025) – People did not revert to a state of non-readiness where their SOR occurred in December of 2019 and CPL 245 came into effect in 2020. Assuming, arguendo, that the People were required to comply with the discovery obligations set forth in CPL 245.20, the People were not required to file a certificate of compliance (COC) to stop the speedy trial clock.    Although the People committed a discovery violation by failing to turn over certain evidence in a timely manner, the court precluded the People from using such evidence at trial, which is an appropriate sanction under CPL 245.80.

Case remitted to determine allegations of discovery violations

People v Mitchell, 2025 NY Slip Op 01456 (4th Dept 3/14/2025) – Case held again, decision reserved, and remitted to County Court “to determine whether the People were ready within the requisite time period (see CPL 30.30 [1] [a]), including the applicability and effect, if any, of defendant’s obligation under CPL 245.50 (4) (b)—which became effective during the pendency of the prosecution—to notify or alert the People to the extent he was aware of a potential defect or deficiency related to the COC, which awareness was a disputed issue before the court”. Multiple discovery lapses previously alleged.

Unavailable grand jury transcript did not render COC illusory

People v Flowers, 2025 NY Slip Op 00583 (4th Dept 1/31/2025) – CoC valid despite lack of GJ transcripts because People advised in the COC that the grand jury transcripts were “unavailable” at that time “due to the limited availability of transcription services.” People met burden in opposition to defendant’s CPL 30.30 motion of establishing that they “ha[d] ‘exercis[ed] due diligence and ma[de] reasonable inquiries to ascertain the existence of material and information subject to discovery’ ” at the time the COC and SOR were filed.

Motion to withdraw guilty plea for discovery violations properly denied

People v Davis, 2025 NY Slip Op 01526 (4th Dept 3/14/2025) – CPL 245.25 (2) provides that, at least seven days before any plea offer is set to expire, the People must disclose “all items and information that would be discoverable prior to trial.” Where, as here, the defendant makes a motion based on the People’s violation of that provision, “the court must consider the impact of any violation on the defendant’s decision to accept or reject a plea offer”. Here, defendant failed to establish that the People’s purported discovery violation “had any impact on his decision to accept the plea offer” and he has not shown that there was any ” ‘evidence of innocence, fraud, or mistake in inducing’ ” his guilty plea.

Failure to review cell phone evidence prior to admission – counsel ineffective People v. Cousins, 2025 NY Slip Op 01535 (4th Dept 3/14/2025) – Reversed. On several occasions, including during the Mapp and Molineux hearings, and subsequently at the trial defense counsel was unfamiliar with and had not reviewed critical discovery obtained via search warrant from defendant’s cell phones. For example, defense counsel initially failed to object to the admission of a flash drive containing the entire contents of defendant’s cell phones, only objecting after admitted, and acknowledged that he had not had a chance to review “the exact exhibit.” Counsel also failed to object to the portion of those contents containing voice notes, which constituted improper hearsay. Counsel’s failure to review the contents of the cell phones had the result that he could not appreciate how important certain text messages and other communications were to the People’s case.

Trial courts

People v Martinez, 2025 NY Slip Op 25056 (Sup Ct, Kings Co. 3/5/2025) ( Gershuny, J.) – 30.30 motion to dismiss granted; invalid CoC. Mere statement that a request for all materials was made is insufficient to establish due diligence. Had the People reviewed the evidence in this case, it would have been abundantly clear that files were missing.

Grand Jury

1st Dept

Guilty plea forfeits appellate consideration of challenge to GJ presentment
People v Cabrera, 2025 NY Slip Op 01874 (1st Dept 3/27/25) – Court rejected defendant’s claim that indictment should be dismissed because of alleged mischaracterization by prosecutor of video-recorded statement. That claim “goes to the sufficiency of the evidence in support of the indictment and therefore was forfeited upon his guilty plea (People v Hansen, 95 NY2d 227, 232 [2000]). Furthermore, ‘[r]egardless of whether defendant validly waived his right to appeal, by pleading guilty, defendant forfeited review of his claim that prosecutorial misconduct impaired the integrity of the grand jury proceedings’ (People v Correa, 228 AD3d 409, 410 [1st Dept 2024], lv denied 42 NY3d 1079 [2025]). In any event, although the prosecutor’s mischaracterization of defendant’s earlier statement was improper, defendant had an opportunity to answer the prosecutor’s question and deny making that earlier statement; thus, the prosecutor’s conduct ‘did not rise to the level of impairment of the integrity of the proceedings’ (id.).”

4th Dept.

Guilty plea waives Grand Jury evidentiary sufficiency and legal instruction issues
People v. Bowser, 2025 NY Slip Op 01750 (4th Dept., 3/21/2025) – Defendant’s challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence before the grand jury and his contention that evidence before the grand jury was admitted without an adequate foundation do not survive his guilty plea. Also forfeited was a review of his contention that the integrity of the grand jury proceedings was impaired by the prosecutor’s failure to give a circumstantial evidence charge.

Trial courts

Integrity of Grand Jury was impaired by ADA’s synopsis of the evidence

People v Rivers, 2025 NY Slip Op 50373(U)(Sup Ct, NY Co. 3/20/2025) (Ward, J.)- The prosecutor told the grand jury her summary of the facts, without any limiting instruction, and before the grand jury heard any testimony. Also, the prosecutor re-stated, at length, testimony regarding who was depicted in arrest photos, as well as the surveillance footage. In sum, the prosecutor usurped the function of the grand jury, errors which may have prejudiced the defendants. Dismissed with leave to re-present.

Voir Dire & Juror Issues

1st Dept

People v Luke, 2025 NY Slip Op 00297 (1st Dept 1/21/25) – Finding that the trial court had “circumvent[ed] the Batson protocol in its entirety,” 3-2 majority held defendant’s appeal in abeyance & remitted matter back to trial court for further proceedings. Trial court “did not determine whether defendant met his prima facie burden at step one. Nor did the court proceed to step two, allowing the prosecution to place a neutral reason on the record for the court to determine whether the prosecution’s explanation was pretextual.” By zeroing in on the question of the appropriate remedy, where the prospective jurors in question had already been sent home, trial judge failed to conduct the meaningful inquiry required by Batson. Error not harmless.

2d Dept

For-cause challenge should have been granted – new trial ordered

People v Faustin, 2025 NY Slip Op 01231 (2d Dept 3/5/25) – A prospective juror stated that his mother-in-law was a victim of sexual assault and indicated that this was not the “right case” for him since the sexual assault allegations in this case might make him “too emotional” and might be something he “c[ould not] handle.” Under the circumstances, the prospective juror’s statements raised a serious doubt regarding his ability to be impartial, and the court failed to elicit an unequivocal assurance on the record that the prospective juror could render a fair and impartial verdict based on the evidence (see People v Francois, 156 AD3d 812; People v Reyes, 125 AD3d 892). Since the defendant exhausted his peremptory challenges, the denial of his for-cause challenge constitutes reversible error.

Opening

3d Dept

People v Bender, 2025 NY Slip Op 01678 (3d Dept 3/20/25) – Defendant went to trial on charges of first-degree reckless endangerment and driving while impaired by drugs. In the opening statement, the prosecutor mentioned that defendant was impaired by marijuana at the time he was driving the car, but later adduced no evidence of defendant’s impairment due to marijuana.  Since the charge of driving while impaired due to drugs had not yet been dismissed at the time of the People’s opening statement, the prosecutor had the right to outline what he/she intended to prove. There was no indication in the record that the prosecutor was acting in bad faith, and the trial court instructed the jury to disregard information about the dismissed driving while ability impaired charge. Consequently, the 3d Department found no merit in defendant’s claim that he was deprived of a fair trial.

Direct

1st Dept

People v Coggins, 2025 NY Slip Op 01881 (1st Dept 3/27/25) – “The surveillance video footage which showed the altercation between defendant and the victim…was inadvertently lost and not destroyed in bad faith. As a result, the court’s admission [at the 2019 trial, before CPL Article 245 was in effect] of the testimony of the seven witnesses who viewed the footage as to what the video footage showed did not violate the best evidence rule [citations omitted]. Although the witnesses’ testimony varied in certain respects, it was largely consistent and reasonably accurate on the elements of the altercation, and each of the witnesses was subject to rigorous cross-examination. Moreover, the trial court providently issued a sanction in the form of a permissive adverse inference to counter possible prejudice to defendant [citations omitted].”

3d Dept

People v Swartz 2025 NY Slip Op 01015 (3d Dept 2/20/2025) – Defendant deprived of a fair trial by testimonies of police witnesses, who each offered their opinion as to victim 2’s credibility. Court also found that because the People’s case relied on the credibility of the victims, the “cumulative effect” of this testimony not only interfered with the jury’s credibility determination on victim 2, but also bolstered the testimony of victim 1.

4th Dept.

Prior bad acts properly admitted

People . Ballard 2025 NY Slip Op 01536 (4th Dept 3/14/2025) – Trial court did not err in admitting evidence of a prior uncharged crime, i.e., that defendant previously sexually abused the complainant when defendant was 13 years old. That evidence “was relevant to provide background information concerning the context and history of defendant’s relationship with [the complainant], including the reason why the complainant was not to be left alone with defendant as part of an established safety plan. Additionally, the evidence concerning the prior abuse and defendant’s admissions to the police about those acts were “inextricably interwoven with the evidence of the charged crime[s]” and were “necessary to comprehend that evidence”.

People v Alexander, 2025 NY Slip Op 00539 (4th Dept 1/31/2025) – CPW 2d was based on allegations that defendant possessed a handgun with the intent to use it unlawfully against his stepchildren. The People sought to admit defendant’s “systematic abuse” of his wife to show defendant’s motive, intent, absence of mistake, and identity in this case. The conduct, not directly relevant to motive, demonstrated a pattern of threatening his wife with the gun for perceived infidelity, but it did not complete a narrative that would explain or support defendant’s sudden aggression against his stepchildren. The evidence also is entirely unnecessary to establish defendant’s intent. None of the other Molineux categories applied, and the court abused its discretion in determining that its probative value outweighed its potential for prejudice.

People v Henderson, 2025 NY Slip Op 00537 (4th Dept 1/31/2025) – In a narcotics case, Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in granting the People’s Molineux application and permitting the People to introduce evidence of defendant’s prior conviction for attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, as well as the underlying facts of that conviction, concluding that the probative value of the evidence outweighed its prejudicial effect. By giving appropriate limiting instructions both before and after the testimony that the Molineux evidence was being offered only for the limited purpose “on the question of knowing possession and intent,” and reiterating its limiting instruction during the jury charge, “the court mitigated any prejudice to defendant”.

People v Hills, 2025 NY Slip Op 00560 (4th Dept 1/31/2025) – Approximately two weeks after the homicide, and while the police were still investigating, defendant was found in possession of a .44 caliber revolver. He was convicted of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (§ 265.03 [3]) as a result of that possession. Defendant was also convicted in a different proceeding “to possessing the same gun” that was allegedly used in the homicide, and “[t]here was no evidence offered at trial to show that the defendant’s possession of the gun was not continuous”. Defendant’s subsequent prosecution for the same offense barred by double jeopardy. However, evidence of the weapon’s possession was properly admitted as it was directly relevant to the issue of identity.

People v Boyd, 2025 NY Slip Op 00571 (4th Dep. 1/31/2025) – Trial court properly admitted the victim’s testimony from the felony hearing. Although she testified at trial, she failed to testify truthfully or consistently with her prior testimony due to defendant’s misconduct and was thereby rendered “effectively unavailable”. The People established “by clear and convincing evidence that . . . defendant engaged in misconduct aimed . . . at preventing [the victim] from testifying [truthfully] and that those misdeeds were a significant cause of [her] decision not to [truthfully] testify.”

Cross-examination

1st Dept

People v Vasquez, 2025 NY Slip Op 01193 (1st Dept 3/4/25) – No merit in defendant’s complaint that the People’s cross-examination of his mother exceeded the scope of direct examination. “[I]n a criminal case, a party may prove through cross-examination any relevant proposition, regardless of the scope of direct examination [citations omitted].”

2d Dept

Cross of PO about lawsuit properly limited

People v Williams, 2025 NY Slip Op 01397 (2d Dept. 3/12/25) – Because the defendant failed to identify specific allegations from the lawsuits that were relevant to the credibility of the police detective, the court’s limitation of the defendant’s cross-examination concerning those lawsuits was proper under the circumstances (see People v Mack, 196 AD3d 603; People v Smith, 27 NY3d 652).

Re-direct/Rebuttal

4th Dept.

People v Nasir, 2025 NY Slip Op 00572 (4th Dept 1/31/2025) – Supreme Court erred in precluding defendant from calling a witness to testify as to a prosecution witness’s prior inconsistent statement for the purpose of impeaching the prosecution witness. Although a party “cannot introduce extrinsic documentary evidence or call other witnesses to contradict a witness'[s] answers concerning collateral matters solely for the purposes of impeaching that witness'[s] credibility”, that rule “has no application where the issue to which the evidence relates is material in the sense that it is relevant to the very issues that the jury must decide”. Here, defendant sought to call a witness whose testimony would have directly contradicted the prosecution witness’s testimony and the proposed testimony pertained to a non-collateral issue and the court erred in not allowing the proffered witness to testify. However, such error was harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of guilt.

Summation

2d Dept

Improper Summation

  • People v Gallardo, 2025 NY Slip Op 00460 (2d Dept. 1/29/25) – During summation, the prosecutor, inter alia, “repeatedly accused the defendant of lying, improperly vouched for the credibility of the complainant, and misstated the critical evidence to support the charge of attempted murder in the second degree. Indeed, the prosecutor repeatedly accused the defendant of lying on the witness stand by stating, among other things, that the defendant was ‘caught in a lie’ and was being ‘less than truthful,’ and that ‘[w]hen she thinks it is going to benefit her, she is quick to tell you a lie.’ (see People v Flores, 165 AD3d 695; other citations omitted) The prosecutor also improperly stated that to believe the defendant’s version of the events, the jury would have to believe ‘that [the complainant] is lying about everything she told you, you have to believe she’s a complete liar,’ that the police officers ‘are lying too,’ and that ‘[e]veryone is out to get this defendant.’ Additionally, the prosecutor improperly vouched for the complainant’s credibility by repeatedly telling the jury that the complainant was, inter alia, ‘honest” and ‘telling the truth,’ and that her testimony ‘was plausible and true’ (see People v Brown, 26 AD3d 392). Further, the prosecutor misstated the critical evidence as to a doctor’s testimony regarding the depth of the stab wound to puncture the complainant’s chest cavity by stating that ‘at a minimum it would need to be a[n] inch or two to puncture someone’s chest cavity’ (see People v Redd, 141 AD3d 546). Rather, the doctor estimated that the stab wound would have to be ‘about an inch’ deep. As this evidence was critical to support the charge of attempted murder in the second degree, the prosecutor’s remarks were improper.” Reversed and new trial ordered.

3d Dept

People v Williams 2025 NY Slip OP 00349 (3d Dept 1/23/25) – It was improper for prosecutor to argue in summation that it was for the jury to protect the young victim. The remark misstated the jury’s “ultimate responsibility — determining facts relevant to guilt or innocence.” Nevertheless, the 3d Dept affirmed the judgment since there was no objection, the prosecutor had not engaged in a pattern of misstatements that compromised defendant’s right to a fair trial and the court gave a correct charge on the role of the jury.  

4th Dept.

Improper summation comments did not warrant reversal, but improper admission of testimony did

People v Iqbal, 2025 NY Slip Op 01746 (4th Dept 3/21/2025) – Reversed. On summation the prosecutor stated, “[t]his is America, and we do have the American judicial system. And you cannot do this in America. You cannot strangle people, you cannot threaten to slit their throat, you cannot light them on fire.” In the context of this case and the context in which the remark was made, the remark was an improper attempt at stereotyping defendant, the alleged victim, and the underlying circumstances of the case. Although improper, reversal on that ground was unwarranted because the comments “[did] not substantially prejudice[ ] . . . defendant’s trial”. What was reversable however, was trial court allowing testimony of a police officer who responded to the scene, regarding his observations of other, unnamed complainants in prior, unspecified cases. The officer was permitted to testify that he had taken photographs “once or twice” of complainants who had “alleged strangulations,” and that he could not recall having observed bruises on those other complainants. Testimony was used by the People in order to explain that the lack of marks on the neck of the victim in the present case did not mean that defendant did not strangle her. Prosecution compounded the error by making use of such testimony on summation.

App Term

People v Santos, 2025 NY Slip Op 50200(U) (App Term, 1st Dept 2/18/2025) – In DWI case, prosecutor’s comments did not constitute impermissible vouching. Prosecutor made fair arguments as to why witnesses should be believed; remarks were permissible comment on a matter of credibility; and the prosecutor didn’t become an unsworn witnesses. Also, trial court’s curative instruction was sufficient to prevent prejudice.

Conflict of Interest/Appearance of Impropriety

Court of Appeals

People v. Fredericks, 2025 NY Slip Op 01011 (2/20/2025) – Court revisited what circumstances trigger a court’s duty to make a minimal inquiry to determine whether a conflict exists that might require substitution of counsel. Here, defendant’s complaints, including that “counsel was not working in his best interest, was prolonging the proceedings, and was advising him to take a plea were too general…” Additionally, counsel’s responses to defendant’s complaints did not create a conflict requiring the assignment of new attorney. Court also discussed why defendant’s 440.10 motion alleging ineffective assistance was properly denied without a hearing.

Disciplinary & Other Proceedings/Sanctions

1st Dept suspends hundreds of lawyers because they failed to register
Many attorneys were suspended for failing to register after being given repeated notice of their delinquency. The last known business addresses listed for some of the attorneys are DAs’ Offices and the NYS Attorney General’s Office. In the Matter of Attorneys Who Are In Violation of Judiciary Law Section 468-a For Failing to Register, 2025 NY Slip Op 01717 (1st Dept 3/20/25).

Inappropriate emails to judge
Public censure for sending inappropriate emails to the judge and others (one ex parte email accused the judge of being a racist and used vulgar and otherwise disdainful language. Matter of Varghese, 2025 NY Slip Op 01427 (1st Dept. 3/13/2023) –

Defense attorney suspended after conviction for criminal contempt re discovery protective orders
Lawyer convicted for criminal contempt, stemming from his willful violation of protective orders, which “directed that the police reports were to be maintained in respondent’s exclusive possession, not to be copied or presented to any other person (except that respondent was permitted to show the reports to his client), and to be used for the exclusive purpose of preparing his client’s defense. However, respondent’s incarcerated client was found in possession of the police reports, which were allegedly used in an attempt to tamper with a witness.” At disciplinary sanctions hearing, lawyer acknowledged that his negligence resulted in the reports being found in his client’s cell, but asserted that the reports were of no significance since he and his client were already aware of the persons named in the reports. Court agreed 1-year suspension appropriate in light of attorney’s prior disciplinary history, the nature of the most recent misconduct, and the lawyer’s lack of remorse. Matter of Robert A. Walters,’ 2025 NY Slip Op 01320 (1st Dept 3/26/25).


Reciprocal suspension for ethics violations including failure to review recorded interviews
Matter of Cobb, 2025 NY Slip Op 01803 (2d Dept 3/26/2025) – Defense attorney suspended for two years (reciprocal after VT suspension violations in two cases) for violating rules 1.1 (‘failing to obtain or review recorded interviews), 1.3 (failure to provide diligent representation by failing to file a motion pursuant to a client’s stated wishes), 1.6 (disclosure of confidential client information), 8.4(c) and 8.4(d).

Failure to respond to Grievance Committee results in disbarment
Matter of Mars, 2025 NY Slip Op 00964 (2d Dept 2/19/25) – Attorney was properly served by the Grievance Committee with four charges of professional misconduct, which she never answered or requested additional time to do so. Accordingly, the attorney defaulted; the charges were deemed established; and she was disbarred.

Cyber Security

1st Dept

Unlawful computer access results in suspension

Miscellaneous

4th Dept

Alleged improper comments by prosecutor during DVSJA hearing not grounds for vacatur

People v Nateonna R., 2025 NY Slip Op 01757 (4th Dept 3/21/2025) – Prosecutorial misconduct did not deprive defendant of a fair hearing. Any inappropriate or inflammatory comments made by the prosecutor did not contribute to the outcome because there was no jury at the DVSJA hearing, and a court serving as the factfinder is “deemed uniquely capable of distinguishing those issues properly presented to [it] from those not”. Additionally, the Court properly denied sentencing under the DVSJA, as defendant “did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that ‘substantial physical, sexual or psychological abuse . . . was a significant contributing factor to [her] criminal behavior’ “.


Indictment properly dismissed due to pre-indictment delay

People v Tyson, 2025 NY Slip Op 00545 (4th Dept 1/31/2025) – Affirmed. County Court did not err in dismissing indictment charging aggravated harassment of an employee by an incarcerated individual (Penal Law § 240.32) on the ground that defendant was denied his constitutional right of due process as a result of preindictment delay. Applying the factors from Taranovich, the court properly concluded that the 14-month delay between defendant’s arrest and his indictment was unreasonable, given the simplicity of the case, the low level of the offense, that lab testing was timely completed within a month, and fact that defendant was subjected to 7 months of solitary confinement as a consequence of the incident.

Ethics Opinions

Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics

  • Opinion 24-181 A judge whose law clerk leaves to become Chief Assistant to the District Attorney must, for one year, disqualify from all cases where the former law clerk appears, or that are prosecuted under the former law clerk’s supervision as Chief Assistant, subject to remittal.
  • Opinion 24-189 Where a judge’s law clerk, had unsuccessfully just ran for District Attorney, had made extremely injudicious campaign statements and repeatedly violated the public comment rule, resulting in the judge directing the law clerk to take a leave of absence during the campaign: (1) The judge’s impartiality cannot reasonably be questioned solely on this basis and the judge may therefore continue to preside in criminal cases, provided the judge concludes he/she can be fair and impartial. (2) The judge must insulate the law clerk from all criminal cases for two years and disclose the insulation. After doing so, the judge may preside even if a party objects. (3) If the judge concludes that the law clerk’s admitted campaign statements constitute substantial professional misconduct, the judge must take appropriate action, but it is left to the judge’s discretion to determine what action is appropriate under the circumstances.
  • Opinion 24-191 (1) Where a judge’s spouse heads the public defender’s office, the judge is disqualified in all matters involving that office. The disqualification is subject to remittal only if the judge’s spouse remains permanently absent from the courtroom. (2) Where a Family Court judge’s spouse is an assistant public defender who works exclusively on felony criminal trials and has no direct or indirect supervision of the assistant public defender who appears in Family Court: (a) The judge may preside in Family Court matters where the public defender’s office represents the defendant, provided there is no related felony criminal proceeding, the judge concludes he/she can be fair and impartial, and the judge’s spouse is not involved in the case. (b) Where the public defender’s office is handling both a Family Court case and a related felony criminal case in another court, the judge is disqualified in the Family Court case, but may permit remittal of disqualification if his/her spouse remains permanently absent from the courtroom.

Bar Association Opinions

NYSBA Amicus

The news organizations want affirmation of a trial court ruling that the First Amendment affords a right of public access to orders of the Grievance Committee adjudicating allegations of attorney misconduct deemed worthy of investigation, and Appellate Division proceedings and records concerning claims of misconduct referred for possible imposition of more severe sanctions.


2/5/2025 NYSBA Ethics Opinion on Prosecutor Relations with Police

  • NYSBA Ethics Opinion 1278 – Disclosure of prior relationship with witness (2/5/2025) – Under Rule 3.8(b), a prosecutor is required to timely disclose her past romantic relationship with a law enforcement officer in any case where the officer will be a witness whose testimony could be subject to challenge. Rules 3.3(a)(1) and 3.4(a)(3) may also be implicated if New York’s discovery law requires disclosure of the past romantic relationship. Whether a lawyer’s past romantic relationship with a witness implicates a personal interest that would create a “significant risk” of adversely affecting the lawyer’s judgment within the meaning of Rule 1.7(a)(2) depends on the facts and circumstances of that prior relationship and its likely impact on the objectivity and conduct of the lawyer in question.

AI Use

Court recommends attorney be personally sanctioned $15,000 for submitting briefs (on three separate occasions) with non-existent cases.

Other States

Prosecutor suspended for spying on jury deliberations

  • State of Oklahoma ex rel. OBA v Shields, 2025 OK 20 (3/25/2025) – Former Chief ADA suspended for six months for viewing jury deliberations via court security cameras. The Supreme Court of Oklahoma declared:
    • “It is common knowledge that observing jury deliberations is unacceptable. Respondent’s actions were widely reported in the media, bringing discredit and shame upon the legal profession. As a result, there is sure to be a chilling effect on potential jurors whom have heard of this matter. An assistant district attorney is a minister of justice, second only to a judge. But instead of behaving accordingly, Respondent’s actions take us into the dark, unseen, ugly, shocking nightmare vision of a prosecutor who loves victory more than he loves justice. Respondent’s behavior is precisely the type that undermines public trust in the legal system and profession. The privacy of jury deliberations is sacrosanct. The importance of preserving the sanctity of jury proceedings is monumental. As such, the discipline imposed must reflect to the public how seriously we treat this misconduct. We find that suspension for six months is the appropriate discipline (citations omitted).”

US Supreme Court Reverses Murder Conviction

“An Oklahoma jury convicted petitioner Richard Glossip of paying Justin Sneed to murder Barry Van Treese and sentenced him to death. At trial, Sneed admitted he beat Van Treese to death, but testified that Glossip had offered him thousands of dollars to do so. Glossip confessed he helped Sneed conceal his crime after the fact, but he denied any involvement in the murder.

Nearly two decades later, the State disclosed eight boxes of previously withheld documents from Glossip’s trial. These documents show that Sneed suffered from bipolar disorder, which, combined with his known drug use, could have caused impulsive outbursts of violence. They also established, the State agrees, that a jail psychiatrist prescribed Sneed lithium to treat that condition, and that the prosecution allowed Sneed falsely to testify at trial that he had never seen a psychiatrist. Faced with that evidence, Oklahoma’s attorney general confessed error. Before the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA), the State conceded that the prosecution’s failure to correct Sneed’s testimony violated Napue v. Illinois, 360 U. S. 264 (1959), which held that prosecutors have a constitutional obligation to correct false testimony [emphasis added by SCOTUS]. The attorney general accordingly asked the court to grant Glossip a new trial. The OCCA declined to grant relief because, it held, the State’s concession was not “based in law or fact.” 2023 OK CR 5, ¶25, 529 P. 3d 218, 226. Because the prosecution violated its obligations under Napue, we reverse the judgment below and remand the case for a new trial.”

Prosecutorial misconduct leads to reversal – and dismissal – of murder case

  • State v. Lensegrav, S-1-SC-39542 (N.M. Feb 20, 2025) – Outrageous prosecutorial misconduct retrial barred. “There is absolutely no scenario in which it is acceptable for a prosecutor to accuse a defendant of witchcraft in a twenty-first-century court.”

Public censure for comments to law student interns

  • People v Bruce Carpenter Carey, 24PDJ092 (January 6, 2025) – During a recess in his client’s criminal trial, Carey made “small talk” with two female student lawyers from the prosecutor’s office. Students reported the statements, which were of a sexual nature, to their supervisor and said that the encounter made them both feel uncomfortable. Carey violated Colo. RPC 8.4(i) (a lawyer must not engage in conduct, in connection with the lawyer’s professional activities, that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know constitutes sexual harassment).

Amendments to Rules of Professional Conduct

1/2/2025 Amendments to RPC

New Biennial Attorney Registration Reporting Requirements

  • Effective 12/1/2024, all attorneys must:
    • Confirm they remain in good standing in out-of-state jurisdictions where they are admitted.
    • Disclose whether they have been subject to public discipline in any other jurisdiction.
    • File their registrations using the mandatory online system.

CPC Rules Adopted

CPC Rules Effective 12/18/2024