Professional Conduct Resources
The Right Thing
Code of Conduct
1st Quarter 2023 Ethics Decisions
Brady/Giglio/Rosario & Other Discovery Issues
1st Dept
People v Anonymous, 2023 NY Slip Op 00962 (2/21/23) – “The prosecutor’s belated disclosure of impeachment material about a relatively minor witness did not violate the People’s Brady obligations, because the undisclosed evidence was not material and no prejudice arose from the belated disclosure (see People v Garrett, 23 NY3d 878, 891-892 [2014]).”
- Also, “the People did not violate then-applicable CPL 240.20(1)(g) by disclosing during their rebuttal case six recorded phone calls that defendant had made while he was at Rikers Island. * * * Because the People did not seek to introduce the Rikers calls on their direct case, their disclosure was not belated. Upon determining that the calls were relevant to rebut evidence introduced by defendant, the People promptly disclosed them to the defense, and the court providently exercised its discretion in admitting them.”
2nd Dept
People v Bristowfeelings (Earl), 2023 NY Slip Op 01526 (3/22/23) – Trial court did not err in denying defense request for adverse inference charge re missing surveillance video of department store personnel’s prior interaction with defendant. “The record does not establish that the prosecution was ever in possession of such video evidence (see People v Suchite, 191 AD3d 906; People v Robinson, 143 AD3d 744).”
4th Dept
People v McPherson (Oswald), 2023 NY Slip Op 00584 (2/3/23) – Defendant on appeal claimed that the People failed to disclose that one of the testifying officers had been “punished for falsifying a police document and perjuring himself.” The 4th Department held that, assuming a Brady violation occurred, there was “no violation of the defendant’s right to a fair trial” as he was “given a meaningful opportunity” to use the alleged exculpatory material to “cross examine the People’s witness or as evidence during his case [citations omitted].”
People v Gaskin (Jaquan), 2023 NY Slip Op 01415 (3/17/23) – Before trial, the defense asserted the People failed to supply all the required discovery before filing their Certificate of Compliance; they further argued that because the COC was invalid, the People’s SOR was also invalid. Trial court ruled that the defense failed to show any prejudice resulting from the alleged delay and therefore denied the motion, without addressing the issue of whether the People’s COC was valid. Defendant then pleaded guilty and subsequently filed this appeal.
Upon review, the 4th Department ruled that the trial court erred in relying on the “prejudice only” standard found in CPL 245.80 without having first determined if the People had filed their COC “in good faith and reasonable under the circumstances” as required by CPL 245.50 (1). The trial court appeared to have “conflated the standard applicable to requests for sanctions under CPL 245.80—which does involve a prejudice analysis—with the standard for evaluating the propriety of a Certificate Of Compliance for purposes of determining whether the People’s statement of readiness was valid (see CPL 30.30 [5]; 245.50).” The appeal was held in abeyance and the matter remitted to the trial court for a determination of whether the People’s COC was proper under CPL 245.50, and thus whether the statement of readiness was valid.
Trial courts
People v Lawrence (Gary), 2023 NY Slip Op 30432(U) (Nassau County Ct 1/3/23) – Court vacated defendant’s 1993 Murder 2 conviction following DA’s Conviction Integrity Division discovery of memo book notes made by lead homicide detective and an investigation file that were never turned over to defense, material which the court found to be “clearly material.”
Grand Jury
4th Dept
People v Bullock (Kevin), 2023 NY Slip Op 00790 (2/10/23) – After the trial court suppressed certain physical evidence, the People obtained a superseding indictment, and in so doing, presented the suppressed evidence to the second grand jury; defendant convicted at trial on superceding indictment. In affirming the convictions, 4th Department upheld trial court’s denial of motion to dismiss the indictment. “During a grand jury presentation, ‘not every improper comment, elicitation of inadmissible testimony, impermissible question or mere mistake renders an indictment defective. Typically, the submission of some inadmissible evidence will be deemed fatal only when the remaining evidence is insufficient to sustain the indictment’ (People v Huston, 88 NY2d 400, 409 [1996]).” Although the suppressed cell phones and cash should not have been put before the second grand jury, the remaining evidence was sufficient to sustain the indictment.
People v Congdon (Raymond), 2023 NY Slip Op 01622 (3/24/23) – Indictment dismissed (without prejudice to a re-presentment) because the prosecutor failed to instruct the Grand Jury properly as to the crime of Promoting a Sexual Performance By a Child as a sexually motivated felony (Penal Law § 130.91, Penal Law § 263.15). Specifically, the Grand Jury was not instructed as required by People v Kent, 19 NY3d 290 (2012), that “some “affirmative act” is required to prove the crime, and that “viewing computer images of a sexual performance by a child on a computer does not by itself constitute promotion of such images” (CJI2d Penal Law § 263.15).” While a Grand Jury need not be instructed with the same precision as a trial jury, the 4th Department found the charge’s potential for prejudice “was increased by the prosecutor’s cross-examination of defendant during the grand jury presentation in a manner that was ‘calculated to unfairly create a distinct implication that [defendant] was lying’ [citations omitted].”
Voir Dire & Juror Issues
4th Dept
Batson
People v Bullock (Kevin), 2023 NY Slip Op 00790 (2/10/23) – Court rejected defendant’s Batson claim, holding that the record “establishes that the prosecutor consistently exercised peremptory challenges against similarly situated prospective jurors, irrespective of color, inasmuch as the prosecutor also challenged two other panelists, who are not subjects of defendant’s Batson challenge, on the ground that those panelists were originally from out-of-state locations (see People v Hodges, 99 AD3d 629 [1st Dept 2012]).”
Juror misconduct
People v. Newman, 2023 NY Slip Op 01621 (3/24/23) – The trial court properly denied defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict because of juror misconduct. Pursuant to CPL 330.30(2), the “defendant has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence every fact essential to support the motion” (CPL 330.40 [2] [g]).” At the hearing in this case, defendant relied entirely on inadmissible hearsay statements that were unconfirmed by other competent evidence.
Direct
1st Dept
People v Feliciano (Luis), 2023 NY Slip Op 00173 (1/12/23) – Excerpt from 9/11 call in which the victim’s neighbor stated that the victim had been the target of an attempted groping and rape was not a present sense impression because the neighbor was not a witness to the events reported. People v Cantave, 21 NY3d 374, 382 (2013). But although it should not have been part of the People’s case, error deemed harmless.
People v Guzman (Junior), 2023 NY Slip Op 00398 (1/31/23) – Victim’s testimony at first trial properly admitted on People’s direct case at retrial after a hung jury.
- “[T]he People satisfied the constitutional and statutory requirement of unavailability. The trial court conducted an inquiry as to the victim’s unavailability, at which the People demonstrated that they exercised due diligence in attempting to locate the victim (see CPL 670.10, 670.20). According to the People, the victim was totally uncooperative, the People had lost all means of contact with him, and further efforts to locate him would have been futile. Defendant did not preserve his contention that the trial court was required to conduct an evidentiary hearing and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternate holding, we find that an evidentiary hearing featuring sworn testimony is not an absolute prerequisite to making a finding that a witness is unavailable [citation omitted]. Further, CPL 670.20 neither defines the term ‘hearing’ nor excludes the possibility of a hearing consisting of factual presentations and arguments by counsel.”
People v Hernandez (Mitchell), 2023 NY Slip Op 00503 (2/2/23) – Trial court properly granted People’s request that defendant be required to remove his eyeglasses before the victim was asked to make an in-court identification. This was not unduly suggestive/prejudicial. “[T]he glasses appeared to be obscuring defendant’s face, and the perpetrator had not worn glasses [citations omitted]. We note that in identification procedures, a suspect may be required, where appropriate, to make a change of appearance in aid of a reliable identification [citations omitted].”
People v Weathers (John), 2023 NY Slip Op 00741 (2/9/23) – “People should not have been permitted to submit evidence of defendant’s … statement to a detective regarding defendant’s discussion with the victim about the value of the latter’s jewelry because this statement was not properly noticed pursuant to CPL 710.30(1)(a). Although the People disclosed the interview generally, they did not disclose this particular statement (see People v St. Martine, 160 AD2d 35, 40-42 [1st Dept], lv denied 76 NY2d 990 [1990]). At a suppression hearing, defendant only moved to suppress other statements not at issue on appeal, and the statement at issue was first revealed during trial testimony, at which time defendant moved for preclusion on the ground of lack of notice.” Error not harmless since the defendant’s “interest in the jewelry and knowledge of its value was key to establishing an inference of his involvement in planning and executing the robbery.”
People v Anonymous, 2023 NY Slip Op 00962 (2/21/23) – Prosecutor should not have elicited testimony about what defendant did not say while being questioned after his arrest, and trial court should granted defense request to strike that testmony re selective silence. See People v Williams, 25 NY3d 185, 193 (2015). But error deemed harmless in this particular case.
People v Lee (Donald), 2023 NY Slip Op 01239 (3/9/23) – Trial prosecutor’s question was not intended to elicit detective’s comment that defendant had asked for an attorney following his apprehension; this was but a snippet of testimony; judge gave thorough curative instruction; and evidence of Lee’s guilty was overwhelming. New trial not warranted.
2nd Dept
People v Fields (Jamil), 2023 NY Slip Op 00106 (1/11/23) – Although no handgun or ballistics evidence was recovered, People properly permitted to adduce the testimony of a ballistics expert at trial. “[T]he ballistics expert, inter alia, explained the mechanics and operation of weapons, including shell casing ejection and the concrete steps required to fire multiple shots, which the defendant does not contend is within the ken of the average juror.”
People v Chiantella (Anthony), 2023 NY Slip Op 01097 (3/1/23) – Defendant used “offensive language” in Snapchat videos that were part of the People’s case. But because “that language was not directed toward any person or persons,” the videos “did not result in any significant prejudice to the defendant.” Moreover, “such prejudice clearly would have been outweighed by the probative value of those recordings, which supplied crucial proof of the defendant’s mens rea (see People v Hayes, 168 AD3d 489, 490).”
3rd Dept
People v Doane (Michael), 2023 NY Slip Op 00002 (1/5/23) – People’s proof at defendant’s trial for drug sale charges properly included excerpts of phone calls he made from jail. During the telephone conversations, defendant made references to various individuals bringing supplies needed to make methamphetamine to his residence; the anhydrous ammonia tank in his home; the need for his girlfriend to combat the odor of ammonia in the residence; and her continued sales of meth from the abode they had shared. Because this evidence was inextricably interwoven with the charged crimes and particularly relevant and material to issues of intent to sell, an absence of mistake and defendant’s ability to commit the crimes charged, the trial court correctly determined that the probative value outweighed the potential for prejudice. Although the trial court did not give limiting instructions when the evidence was introduced, the court did include such instructions in its final charge, and that instruction was sufficient to minimize any resulting prejudice.
- Citing to its 2021 decision of People v Chappell where it stressed that Molineux is concerned with evidence of a prior uncharged crime or prior bad act committed by the defendant on trial (198 AD3d 1018, 102), the Third Department held that other, complained-of excerpts of the phone call recordings — e.g., defendant’s complaints about “snitches” and prior criminal charges faced by a friend — were outside the scope of Molineux analysis.
4th Dept
People v Brooks (Patrick), 2023 NY Slip Op 01601 (3/24/23) – Photographs of the deceased at the crime scene and at autopsy were properly admitted at trial. “Photographic evidence should be excluded only if its sole purpose is to arouse the emotions of the jury and to prejudice the defendant.” “The photographs “were probative of the serious nature of the injuries sustained by the victim[s] and were thus admissible to establish that defendant intentionally killed the victim[s].”
Cross-examination
3rd Dept
People v. Almenteros (Ricardo), 2023 NY Slip Op 01113 (3/2/23) – Two pounds of cocaine were recovered under the hood of a motor vehicle in which defendant was a passenger; his son was the driver. That son and another passenger entered pleas of guilty in satisfaction of the charges. At defendant’s CPCS trial, “during a contentious portion” of cross-examination, the prosecutor asked whether defendant knew his son had had $30,000 in cash on him; defendant answered that he did not, adding that the prosecutor knew more than he did. The prosecutor then remarked, “I know you’re guilty.” The trial court promptly sustained defense counsel’s objection and instructed the prosecutor to refrain from such remarks. That comment was “clearly improper,” but the Third Department declined to order a new trial after assessing the relevant factors: (1) the severity and frequency of the prosecutor’s conduct; (2) the action taken by the trial court to dilute the effect of the misconduct; and (3) whether a review of the evidence shows that the result would have been the same in the absence of the misconduct.
People v Doane (Michael), 2023 NY Slip Op 000002 (1/5/23) – Trial record indicated that the prosecutor did not provide any details concerning the underlying facts of the prior convictions he wanted to use as impeachment if defendant took the stand. Without such information, the trial court could not appropriately balance the probative value of the remote convictions against their prejudicial effect. But the Third Department deemed the Sandoval determination harmless error.
Rebuttal
3rd Dept
People v Heiserman (Michael), 2023 NY Slip Op 00130 (1/12/23) – Third Department concluded that People’s rebuttal, on the theory that defendant had “opened the door,” should not give rise to reversal. Since defense counsel’s questions on cross-examination were designed to mislead the jury to believe, inaccurately, that defendant had merely called the police because his son was missing, the prosecutor was properly permitted to provide the jury with an explanation of what led to defendant’s arrest and his subsequent assault on a sergeant at the jail.
Summation
1st Dept
People v Longo (Michael), 2023 NY Slip Op 00169 (1/12/23) – Prosecutor’s “statements about the Y-STR DNA analysis were generally fair comments in response to defense summation comments raising questions about the probative value of the DNA evidence, and there were no misrepresentations rising to the level of those condemned in People v Wright, 25 NY3d 769, 781 (2015). The prosecutor did not assert that the limited DNA evidence conclusively proved defendant’s guilt, but merely argued that this evidence, along with the other evidence in the case, established that no other person but defendant drove his car at the time it struck a pedestrian.”
People v Nosea (John), 2023 NY Slip Op 00242 (1/19/23) – “The prosecutor’s summation argument that defendant had been engaged in bullying the victim and his wife was fair comment on the evidence and was not an appeal for sympathy.”
People v Cruz (Steven), 2023 NY Slip Op 00824 (1/14/23) – “The People’s remark in summation that the defense had conceded a knowingly unlawful entry was, in context, a permissible response to the defense summation, and was in any event not so egregious as to warrant reversal” of the first degree burglary conviction.
2nd Dept
People v Zephir (Patrick), 2023 NY Slip Op 00222 (1/18/23)
- Court found no merit in defendant’s claim that conviction should be reversed because of prosecutor’s summation PowerPoint slide, which superimposed “That’s MY CORNER” over photo of the corner store exterior where defendant had been standing before the murder. “Given the defendant’s description of the location as ‘that’s my corner”‘during his testimony, we find that the caption superimposed on the power point slide was fair comment and did not misrepresent the evidence [see People v Anderson, 29 NY3d 69, 72 (2017)].
- The PowerPoint slide with an autopsy photograph of the victim — and bearing the caption “I couldn’t appear soft” (another quote from defendant’s trial testimony) — was “more problematic” as it appeared to “have been solely an appeal to the jury’s emotions [see e.g. People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105, 110-111 (1976)].” But not so egregious as to have deprived defendant of a fair trial.
People v Anderson (Kadeem), 2023 NY Slip Op 00433 (2/1/23) – Prosecutor’s remark — defense counsel “wants you to believe” that because the complainant “was accused of a crime,” the defendant had a “free pass” to rob the complainant “at gunpoint” and “shoot” him “in the head” — to the extent that the comment was improper, was “not so flagrant or pervasive as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial.”
Conflict of Interest-Appearance of Impropriety
3rd Dept
People v Diaz (Wilfredo), 2023 NY Slip Op 000458 (2/2/23) – County Court Judge, who was the District Attorney in 2011-2012 when defendant was prosecuted and convicted on unrelated charges, properly exercised his discretion when he denied defendant’s recusal motion. The County Court Judge had not personally participated in the previous prosecution; stated that he had no independent recollection of the matter and knew nothing about defendant, other than what had been disclosed during the current prosecution; and made clear that he had no reservations about his ability to be fair and impartial. There was nothing in the record to suggest otherwise.
People v Thorton (Richard), 2023 NY Slip Op 000460 (2/2/23) – Third Department exercised its interest of justice jurisdiction to reverse, on a ground not advanced below, County Court’s summary denial of CPL 440.10 motion to vacate 2012 judgment of conviction. In 2019, when defendant filed his 440 motion, the County Court Judge’s law clerk was the District Attorney in office in 2012 when defendant was prosecuted and convicted. The law clerk did not appear to have been directly involved in defendant’s case while she was District Attorney, and the allegations in the 440 motion did not relate to her conduct as District Attorney. But “a law clerk is probably the one participant in the judicial process whose duties and responsibilities are most intimately connected with the judge’s own exercise of the judicial function, and it is well settled that not only must judges actually be neutral, they must appear so as well [internal punctuation and case citations omitted].” Holding that “it was an improvident exercise of County Court’s discretion to rule upon defendant’s CPL 440.10 motion under these circumstances,” the Appellate Division reversed in the interest of justice and remitted the case to County Court (where there is now a different Judge and different law clerk) for a de novo determination of the motion.
Miscellaneous
Court of Appeals
Pre-indictment delay
People v Regan (Andrew), 2023 NY Slip Op 01353 (3/16/22) – Pre-indictment delay of more than 4 years, for which People failed to “proffer any excuse which even colorably justifies that delay,” required vacatur of rape conviction and dismissal of the indictment. Absence of demonstrable bad faith or specific prejudice is not dispositive of the question of whether a defendant’s constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated. See People v Taranovich, 37 NY2d 442, 445 (1975).
Appellate Division
Alleged vindictive prosecution
People v Olivieri (Luis), 2023 NY Slip Op 00166 (1st Dept 1/12/23) – Claim that bail jumping indictment was vindictive prosecution, because defendant had moved to withdraw his guilty plea and for dismissal of the charges, was both unpreserved and without merit. Following defendant’s return on the bench warrant, “the prosecutor permissibly attempted to negotiate a disposition by offering to refrain from presenting bail jumping charges to the grand jury in exchange for defendant withdrawing his motion (see Bordenkircher v Hayes, 434 US 357, 363 [1978]). After defendant declined, the People responded to his motion and charged him with second-degree bail jumping based on probable cause to believe he had committed that crime. There is no basis for applying the presumption of vindictiveness, and nothing in the record suggests that the prosecutor intended to punish defendant for rejecting the offer and refusing to withdraw his motion [citations omitted].”
Amendment of indictment
People v Marcano (Isaias), 2023 NY Slip Op 00582 (4th Dept 2/3/23) – Amending the indictment to correct the date of the crime did not change the theory of the case, and did not prejudice the defendant “on the merits,” and therefore the amendment was proper. People v. Terry, 300 AD2d 1130 (4th Dept 2002); CPL 200.70(1).
People did not deliberately provoke a mistrial
People v Parilla (Miguel), 2023 NY Slip Op 01446 (4th Dept 3/17/23) – 4th Department rejected argument that because a mistrial was declared over defendant’s objection, the re-trial was barred by the US and NY Constitutions. In this case, during the first bench trial, the People promptly disclosed that their final witness, the defendant’s girlfriend, had informed them — after taking the stand and becoming aware of the Judge presiding — defendant had previously suggested to her that he had personal knowledge of the Judge having engaged in certain serious improprieties off the bench. “The Judge vehemently denied the allegation, the Judge ultimately declared a mistrial pursuant to CPL 280.10 (3) on his own motion because the Judge, as the trier of fact, had been placed in the untenable position of having to assess the credibility of a witness who had made a spurious allegation against him.” Consequently, the mistrial was justified by “manifest necessity.” Further, the trial judge considered “‘alternatives to a mistrial and [obtained] enough information so that it [was] clear that a mistrial [was] actually necessary’ [People v Ferguson 67 NY2d 383, 388 (1986].” Lastly, the record did not support defendant’s claim that the mistrial was deliberately provoked by the People.
2016 prosecution by Justice Center, not District Attorney
People v. Rice (Jessica), 2023 NY Slip Op 01211 (3rd Dept 3/9/23) – In 2016, defendant was prosecuted, and convicted, in Franklin County by a Special Prosecutor with the Justice Center for the Protection of People With Special Needs [see Executive Law § 552(2)] for acts committed during her employment at a State-run facility. The Third Department affirmed the judgment in 2019 and denied defendant’s subsequent motions for reargment and leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals. Defendant then moved to vacate her judgment of conviction. Relying on People v Hodgdon, 175 AD3d 65 (3d Dept 2019), aff’d sub nom. People v Viviani, 36 NY3d 564 (2021), she argued that the Franklin County District Attorney had declined to prosecute her and had not granted the Justice Center authority to prosecute.
Citing CPL 440.10(2)(c), County Court summarily denied the CPL 440.10 motion on the ground that defendant could have raised, on direct appeal, the issue of the Justice Center’s authority to prosecute her. The Third Department reversed and remitted for a hearing under CPL 440.30(5), finding that under the “unique circumstances” presented here, defendant’s challenge did not need to be preserved, and she was “entitled to create a record at a hearing on her CPL article 440 motion.”
But, the court continued, defendant should not be heard to challenge her conviction on the additional state constitutional ground enunciated by Viviani, which the Court of Appeals decided after her judgment of conviction became final upon the denial of her leave application. Retroactivity is a matter of state constitutional law, and upon evaluating the factors first articulated by the Court of Appeals more than 40 years ago, the Third Department concluded defendant was not entitled to retroactive application of that prong of Vivani.
Disciplinary & Other Proceedings/Sanctions
Former D.A. disbarred for conduct while in office
Matter of Cornwell (Stephen), 2023 NY Slip Op 01125 (3rd Dept 3/2/23).
On December 5, 2022, a former Broome County District Attorney pleaded guilty to Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree in satisfaction of a multicount indictment. By operation of Judiciary Law § 90(4)(a), he was automatically disbarred as a result of that felony plea, and the Appellate Division confirmed his disbarred status and struck his name from the roll of attorneys nunc pro tunc to December 5.
- The New York Law Journal reported that, in pleading guilty, Cornwell “admitted he stole hard copies of police reports and witness statements in reference to his 1995 arrest on charges of driving while intoxicated, resisting arrest, assault of a police officer and obstruction of governmental administration.”
CLE – Failure to Comply and A Lie
Matter of Strage (Michael) 2023 NY Slip Op 01062 (1st Dept 2/28/23).
Attorney suspended, with his consent, primarily because he lied about being active military and therefore exempt from CLE mandates; he also did not take CLE courses in law office management as directed in connnection with prior disciplinary admonishment.
Criminal Contempt
Matter of Rankin (Douglas), 2023 NY Slip Op 23002 (Sup Ct, Kings County 1/3/23).
Defense attorney found to be in in criminal contempt [see Judiciary Law § 750], and fined $750, for his failure to appear on the second day of continued suppression hearing.
News From Around the US
California
Courthouse News reports that, according to a putative class action filed on March 7 in the San Francisco Superior Court, “[t]he world’s first robot lawyer has been practicing law without a license — doing a pretty poor job of it to boot.”
Kansas
The Kansas Supreme Court refused to suspend a former prosecutor as recommended by counsel for its Office of Disciplinary Administration. Because the misconduct at issue (leaving scene of accident with golf cart & then denying to the police his awareness of the incident) did not occur while he was executing his official duties as a public officer, OAD should not have applied the higher standard of ethical conduct for prosecutors. Court deemed public censure to be the appropriate sanction. Matter of Mitchell J. Spencer, 524 P3d 57 (Kan. 2/10/23).
Maryland
The Supreme Court of Maryland disbarred a former Baltimore homicide prosecutor, with his consent, after he pleaded guilty in the U.S. District Court of Maryland to two counts of fraud in furtherance of stalking. The plea satisfied a 10-count indictment arising out of his issuance of 65 bogus subpoenas in order to obtain cell phone records of calls made by former girlfriends and other information unrelated to any case in the State’s Attorney’s Office. Atty Grievance Commn of Maryland v Adam Lane Chaundry, citation not yet available (Md. 1/3/23).
Minnesota
The Minnesota Supreme Court rejected its disciplinary counsel’s recommendation of a public reprimand and instead suspended a former, longtime City Attorney from the practice of law for no less than 30 days for her failure to take action on at least 135 misdemeanor referrals from local police over the course of 6+ years. When this dereliction came to light, the statute of limitations had expired in 51 of those matters; 27 of the time-barred cases involved domestic assault. A Minnesota statute requires prosecutors to notify the victims in such cases whether they are declining prosecution or dismissing criminal charges against a defendant. In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Elizabeth W. Bloomquist, citation not yet available (Minn. 3/21/23).
New CLE requirement for all attorneys starting 2023
To read the new CLE cybersecurity requirements and an article on this, see: