Case 1:22-cv-03026-ALC-GWG Document 124-1 Filed 04/22/25 Page 1 of 57
`
`Exhibit A
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-03026-ALC-GWG Document 124-1 Filed 04/22/25 Page 2 of 57
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`OKLAHOMA FIREFIGHTERS PENSION
`AND RETIREMENT SYSTEM,
`
`No. 1:22-cv-03026-ALC-GWG
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`Honorable Gabriel W. Gorenstein
`
`ELON R. MUSK, ELON MUSK REVOCABLE
`TRUST DATED JULY 22, 2003, EXCESSION
`LLC, AND JARED BIRCHALL,
`
`Defendants.
`
`DECLARATION OF BRUCE A. GREEN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO APPROVE
`CONFLICT SCREENING PROCEDURE
`
`I, Bruce A. Green, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained on behalf of Lead Counsel in the above-captioned action,
`
`Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (“BLB&G”), to provide an expert opinion in support
`
`of its motion to approve a conflict screening procedure for Mr. Jorge G. Tenreiro, a prospective
`
`partner, from this action.
`
`Qualifications
`
`2.
`
`I hold the Louis Stein Chair at Fordham University School of Law, where I direct
`
`the Louis Stein Center for Law and Ethics. Since 1987, I have been a member of the full-time
`
`faculty of Fordham University School of Law. I previously served as a law clerk to Judge James
`
`L. Oakes of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, as a law clerk to Justice
`
`Thurgood Marshall of the Supreme Court of the United States, and as an Assistant United States
`
`Attorney for the Southern District of New York. A copy of my current curriculum vitae is attached
`
`as Exhibit 1.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-03026-ALC-GWG Document 124-1 Filed 04/22/25 Page 3 of 57
`
`3.
`
`I have regularly taught courses on lawyers’ professional responsibility at Fordham
`
`and elsewhere since 1987. I currently teach courses on both Professional Responsibility and Ethics
`
`in Criminal Advocacy. In addition, I co-author a casebook on professional responsibility for
`
`contemporary legal practice (now in its fifth edition).1
`
`4.
`
`I have organized or co-organized numerous conferences and other programs for
`
`legal academics and practitioners on issues of lawyers’ professional responsibility, and I speak
`
`frequently at Continuing Legal Education programs and academic programs on this subject.
`
`5.
`
`I have written extensively on the subject of lawyers’ professional conduct in both
`
`academic and professional publications.
`
`6.
`
`I have engaged extensively in professional work relating to lawyers’ professional
`
`conduct, much of it involving the drafting, interpreting, or enforcement of professional conduct
`
`rules.
`
`7.
`
`On the national level, I currently chair both the ABA Standing Committee on
`
`Ethics and Professional Responsibility and the Multistate Professional Responsibility
`
`Examination drafting committee. I previously chaired the ethics committees of both the ABA
`
`Litigation Section and the ABA Criminal Justice Section, as well as the Section on Professional
`
`Responsibility of the Association of American Law Schools.
`
`8.
`
`Further, I am a past chair of the New York City Bar’s Committee on Professional
`
`Ethics. I am a past chair and current member of the New York State Bar Association’s
`
`Committee on Professional Ethics; I am a current member of the New York State Bar
`
`Association’s Committee on Standards of Attorney Conduct; and I am a member of the New
`
`1 See Renee K. Jefferson et al., Professional Responsibility: A Contemporary Approach (5th ed.
`2023).
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-03026-ALC-GWG Document 124-1 Filed 04/22/25 Page 4 of 57
`
`York County Lawyers Association’s Committee on Professional Ethics. I served for six years
`
`on the Departmental Disciplinary Committee of the New York State Supreme Court, Appellate
`
`Division, First Department.
`
`9.
`
`I occasionally testify as an expert witness, give advice, draft amicus briefs, and
`
`render other professional services on issues of lawyers’ professional conduct. When serving as
`
`an expert witness, in this case and others, I render opinions in my individual capacity and do
`
`not speak on behalf of any of the entities with which I am, or have been, associated.
`
`Relevant Facts
`
`10.
`
`For purposes of providing these opinions, I have reviewed the declarations of
`
`Salvatore J. Graziano and Jorge G. Tenreiro in support of Plaintiff’s motion to approve conflict
`
`screening procedures. My factual assumptions, based on my review of these materials, are
`
`reflected below.
`
`Analysis
`
`I.
`
`The Court Has the Requisite Authority to Approve BLB&G’s Proposed Screen
`and Grant This Motion
`
`11.
`
`Federal courts have the inherent power to regulate the conduct of attorneys
`
`appearing before them. Hempstead Video, Inc. v. Inc. Vill. of Valley Stream, 409 F.3d 127, 132
`
`(2d Cir. 2005); Bd. of Educ. of the City of New York v. Nyquist, 590 F.2d 1241, 1245–46 (2d. Cir.
`
`1979). While courts usually address lawyers’ conflicts of interest in response to a motion to
`
`disqualify counsel, courts have also ruled on conflicts issues when presented to the court by the
`
`attorney who is the potential target of a disqualification motion. See, e.g., In re Sunbum5 Enters.,
`
`LLC, Nos. 6:10-cv-1268-Orl-28, 6:10-cv-1269-Orl-28, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113295, at *1, *5
`
`(M.D. Fla. Sept. 30, 2011) (the court heard an appeal from the bankruptcy court about “a motion
`
`for a determination that a law firm did not have a conflict of interest in representing the Chapter 7
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-03026-ALC-GWG Document 124-1 Filed 04/22/25 Page 5 of 57
`
`trustee”); Vinewood Capital, LLC v. Dar Al-Maal Al-Islami Trust, No. 4:06-cv-00316-Y, 2010
`
`U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30358, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 25, 2010) (the court ruled on a “Motion For
`
`Declaration That Counsel Is Not Subject To Disqualification”); Eberle Design, Inc. v. Reno A &
`
`E, 354 F. Supp. 2d 1093, 1094 (D. Ariz. 2005) (the court ruled on a motion that sought the Court’s
`
`guidance about a potential conflict before the attorney who worked for the law firm representing
`
`one party joined the firm representing the opposing party); Bank Brussels Lambert v. Chase
`
`Manhattan Bank, N.A., 93 Civ. 5298 (LMM), 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1624 (S.D.N.Y. Feb 15,
`
`1996) (same).
`
`12.
`
`A prospective judicial ruling is particularly appropriate in the procedural setting of
`
`this case, involving the movement of a lawyer from one employer to another. See, e.g., Eberle,
`
`354 F. Supp. 2d at 1094 (finding that the forthcoming employment by the plaintiff’s law firm of
`
`an associate who previously worked on the matter while employed at the defendant’s law firm
`
`would not require disqualification of the plaintiff’s law firm, because the screening procedure
`
`proposed by the plaintiff’s firm will adequately safeguard any confidences that the associate
`
`possessed); Bank Brussels Lambert, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1624, at *1-2 (finding that the
`
`employment by the plaintiff’s law firm of an associate who previously worked on the matter while
`
`employed at the defendant’s law firm would not require disqualification of the plaintiff’s law firm
`
`because the screening procedure proposed by the plaintiff’s firm, together with further
`
`requirements set forth by the district court, would adequately safeguard any confidences that the
`
`associate possessed). A favorable judicial ruling here would enable BLB&G to implement
`
`whatever procedural mechanisms the Court may require before Mr. Tenreiro joins the firm, in
`
`order to avoid later litigation regarding the adequacy of procedures instituted by the firm on its
`
`own initiative.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-03026-ALC-GWG Document 124-1 Filed 04/22/25 Page 6 of 57
`
`II.
`
`The Applicable Rule of Professional Conduct Authorizes BLB&G to Continue its
`Representation with the Timely and Effective Screening of Mr. Tenreiro
`
`13.
`
`Under this Court’s Local Rules, the applicable professional conduct rules are those
`
`of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct (“NY Rules”). See Local Civil Rule 1.5(b)(5).
`
`14.
`
`Rule 1.11 of the NY Rules governs the conflicts of interest of former government
`
`lawyers. The specific provisions that are potentially relevant in this context are Rules 1.11(a)(2)
`
`and (c). Even if Mr. Tenreiro was to be personally disqualified from representing the class in this
`
`action—which is not clear but I will assume it for argument’s sake—both Rules 1.11(a)(2) and (c)
`
`would nevertheless permit BLB&G to continue its representation of the class in this action if it
`
`effectively screens Mr. Tenreiro from participating in this matter, as it proposes to do if he joins
`
`the firm.
`
`15.
`
`Rule 1.11(a)(2) forbids a former government lawyer from personally representing
`
`a party in “a matter in which [he] participated personally and substantially as a public officer or
`
`employee” unless the relevant government agency gives its informed consent.2 “Matter” is a
`
`defined term that includes any litigation, case or controversy “involving a specific party or parties.”
`
`The Court need not decide whether this class action is the same “matter” as one on which Mr.
`
`Tenreiro participated at the SEC and, if so, whether he “participated personally and substantially,”
`
`if the Court determines that he will be effectively screened from this action. That is because Rule
`
`1.11(b) provides:
`
`When a lawyer is disqualified from representation under paragraph (a), no lawyer
`in a firm with which that lawyer is associated may knowingly undertake or continue
`representation in such a matter unless:
`
`2 Rule 1.11(a) provides in pertinent part: “Except as law may otherwise expressly provide, a lawyer
`who has formerly served as a public officer or employee of the government . . . (2) shall not
`represent a client in connection with a matter in which the lawyer participated personally and
`substantially as a public officer or employee, unless the appropriate government agency gives its
`informed consent, confirmed in writing, to the representation.”
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-03026-ALC-GWG Document 124-1 Filed 04/22/25 Page 7 of 57
`
`(1) the firm acts promptly and reasonably to:
`
`(i) notify, as appropriate, lawyers and nonlawyer personnel within
`the firm that the personally disqualified lawyer is prohibited from participating in
`the representation of the current client;
`
`(ii) implement effective screening procedures to prevent the flow of
`information about the matter between the personally disqualified lawyer and the
`others in the firm;
`
`(iii) ensure that the disqualified lawyer is apportioned no part of the
`fee therefrom; and
`
`(iv) give written notice to the appropriate government agency to
`enable it to ascertain compliance with the provisions of this Rule; and
`
`(2) there are no other circumstances in the particular representation that
`create an appearance of impropriety.
`
`16.
`
`Rule 1.11(c) would forbid a former government lawyer from personally
`
`representing a private client in a matter if the lawyer has confidential government information that
`
`can be used in the matter against an adverse party.3 The Court need not decide whether Mr. Tenreiro
`
`has confidential government that can be used against Mr. Musk, if the Court determines that he
`
`will be effectively screened under the above-quoted procedures. That is because Rule 1.11(c)
`
`provides in pertinent part: “A firm with which that lawyer is associated may undertake or continue
`
`representation in the matter only if the disqualified lawyer is timely and effectively screened from
`
`any participation in the matter in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (b).”
`
`3 Rule 1.11(c) provides in pertinent part: “Except as law may otherwise expressly provide, a lawyer
`having information that the lawyer knows is confidential government information about a person,
`acquired when the lawyer was a public officer or employee, may not represent a private client
`whose interests are adverse to that person in a matter in which the information could be used to
`the material disadvantage of that person. As used in this Rule, the term ‘confidential government
`information’ means information that has been obtained under governmental authority and that, at
`the time this Rule is applied, the government is prohibited by law from disclosing to the public or
`has a legal privilege not to disclose, and that is not otherwise available to the public.”
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-03026-ALC-GWG Document 124-1 Filed 04/22/25 Page 8 of 57
`
`17.
`
`There is no reason for skepticism about the screening provisions of Rule 1.11(a),
`
`(b) and (c) in general, or to question their application here. The courts of this Circuit generally take
`
`a practical approach to disqualification motions, denying them when the interests served by the
`
`conflict of interest rules, such as the protection of confidential information, can be adequately
`
`served without depriving a party of its chosen counsel.4 In particular, federal courts in this Circuit
`
`have long been amenable to screening lawyers who move laterally from one law office to another,
`
`even in situations where applicable rules of professional conduct do not explicitly provide for
`
`screening.5
`
`III.
`
`BLB&G’s Proposed Screening Procedures Will Be Timely and Effective
`
`18.
`
`BLB&G’s proposed procedures for screening Mr. Tenreiro, in the event the Court
`
`grants the firm’s motion and Mr. Tenreiro joins the firm, will be timely, since the firm will
`
`implement the procedures before Mr. Tenreiro joins the firm. Indeed, a firm’s screening procedures
`
`could not be more timely. Courts generally assume that no relevant confidences will be conveyed
`
`4 See, e.g., Hempstead Video, 409 F.3d at 133; Am. Int’l Grp., Inc. v. Bank of Am. Corp., 827 F.
`Supp. 2d 341, 345 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (“The Second Circuit instructs that disqualification is
`appropriate only where continued representation ‘poses a significant risk of trial taint’”) (quoting
`Glueck v. Jonathan Logan, Inc., 653 F.2d 746, 748 (2d Cir. 1981)); Arista Records LLC, 2011
`U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17434, at *15 (“‘Disqualification is only warranted in the rare circumstance
`where an attorney’s conduct ‘poses a significant risk of trial taint’”) (quoting Decker v. Nagel Rice
`LLC, 716 F. Supp. 2d 228, 231 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)).
`
`5 See, e.g., Am. Int’l Grp., 827 F. Supp. 2d at 346; Arista Records LLC v. Lime Grp. LLC, No. 06
`CV 5936 (KMW), 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17434, at *20 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 22, 2011); Human Elecs.,
`Inc. v. Emerson Radio Corp, 5:03-CV-1318, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30977 (N.D.N.Y. Oct. 28,
`2004) (allowing screening of lateral lawyers); Papyrus Tech. Corp. v. N.Y. Stock Exch., Inc., 325
`F. Supp. 2d 270, 281–82 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (allowing screening of lateral lawyer); Bank Brussels
`Lambert, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1624, at *1-2 (allowing screening of lateral associate who, while
`at a prior firm more than a year earlier, had performed approximately 800 hours of work on the
`litigation on behalf of an opposing party); In re Del-Val Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig., 158 F.R.D. 270,
`274 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) (allowing screening of lateral lawyer); see also DelaRaba v. Suozzi, CV 06-
`1109 (DRH)(AKT), 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92813, at *43–45 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 17, 2006) (allowing
`screening of non-lawyer employee).
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-03026-ALC-GWG Document 124-1 Filed 04/22/25 Page 9 of 57
`
`if a timely screen is implemented before the lateral lawyer joins the new firm. Even when law
`
`firms have failed to formally screen lateral lawyers immediately, courts have denied
`
`disqualification if they find as a factual matter that no material confidences were disclosed in the
`
`interim.6
`
`19.
`
`BLB&G’s proposed screening procedures will also be effective. The procedures
`
`will include all the elements listed in Rule 1.11(b) – notification of all personnel in the firm that
`
`Mr. Tenreiro is prohibited from participating in this action; procedures to prevent the flow of
`
`information about the action between Mr. Tenreiro and those working on the matter; measures to
`
`ensure that Mr. Tenreiro receives no portion of the firm’s fee from this matter; and written notice
`
`to the SEC of BLB&G’s desire to hire Mr. Tenreiro and the ethical screening procedures it would
`
`implement if permitted to do so.
`
`20.
`
`Further, the firm has adopted additional protective measures. For example, it has
`
`already given advance notice to this Court, so that it can impose any additional screening measures
`
`as a condition of granting BLB&G’s motion. Further, the firm has also given notice to Defendants
`
`6 For example, in Arista Records, LLC, the court declined to disqualify Willkie, Farr & Gallagher
`even though the firm had laterally hired a lawyer who, at his previous firm, had represented the
`other side in the same case, and had indisputably acquired relevant client confidences in the course
`of that prior representation. Although the court found that Willkie’s screening procedures “were
`imperfect” and were not fully in place until several months after the conflict was identified, it
`concluded that disqualification was unwarranted “because there [was] no ‘real risk that the trial
`will be tainted.’” 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17434, at *21-23 (citation omitted). See also Am. Int’l
`Grp., 827 F. Supp. 2d at 347 (denying disqualification motion where a partner of the plaintiffs’
`firm previously represented the defendant regarding a substantially similar matter because there
`was no likelihood that material confidences had been shared even though the firm did not
`immediately learn of the conflict and erect a screen); In re Del-Val Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig., 158
`F.R.D. at 275 (denying disqualification where firm’s lateral lawyer previously represented other
`parties in a related matter, because, although a screen was not immediately instituted, no
`confidences were disclosed).
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-03026-ALC-GWG Document 124-1 Filed 04/22/25 Page 10 of 57
`
`(through their counsel), so that they were in
`
`a position to suggest any additional screening
`
`measures. Mr. Tenreiro has also given notice to the SEC.
`
`21.
`
`Further bolstering the effectiveness of BLB&G’s proposed screen is that Mr.
`
`Tenreiro did not bring or retain any relevant documents, electronic files, or other materials from
`
`the SEC when he left. Therefore, the only possible information he could convey to anyone at
`
`BLB&G is limited to what he can remember. Mr. Tenreiro has averred that he did not work on the
`
`SEC’s investigation or action against Elon Musk and has no recollection of any non-public
`
`information underlying the allegations in the SEC’s case that can be used against Mr. Musk.
`Further, he has averred that his only discussions with Bernstein Litowitz of the class action and of
`the SEC’s action against Mr. Musk involved public information and have been for purposes of
`
`conflict checking and implementing screening measures.
`
`2.
`
`With Mr. Tenreiro fully screened off from this action, no circumstances suggest that
`
`BLB&G’s continued representation of the
`
`class might otherwise create
`
`an appearance of
`
`impropriety.
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`ZS.
`
`In sum, because BLB&G will ensure that effective screening procedures are in
`
`place if Mr. Tenreiro were to be hired, neither Rules 1.11(b) or 1.11(c) presents an obstacle to
`
`BLB&G continuing its representation in this action.
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
`
`Executed on April 22, 2025
`
`ona OT\—
`Bruce A. Green
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-03026-ALC-GWG Document 124-1 Filed 04/22/25 Page 11 of 57
`
`Exhibit 1
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-03026-ALC-GWG Document 124-1 Filed 04/22/25 Page 12 of 57
`
`
`
`BRUCE A. GREEN
`Louis Stein Chair
`Fordham University School of Law
`150 West 62nd Street
`New York, NY 10023
`(212) 636-6851; (212) 636-6899 (FAX)
`bgreen@law.fordham.edu
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`New York State (since 1982)
`U.S. District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York
`U.S. Supreme Court
`
`
`
`
`
`Columbia University School of Law: J.D. 1981
`
`Honors: James Kent Scholar; Harlan Fiske Stone Scholar
`Associate Editor, Columbia Law Review
`
`
`Princeton University: A.B. 1978, summa cum laude
`
`
`
`Fordham University School of Law:
`
`Louis Stein Chair of Law, since 1997
`
`Professor, 1996-97; Associate Professor, 1987-96
`
`Director, Louis Stein Center for Law and Ethics, since 1997
`
`Director, Stein Center for Ethics and Public Interest Law, 1992-97
`
`
`
`New York University School of Law: Visiting Professor: January-May 2007
`
`Office of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York:
`
`October 1983 to August 1987, Assistant United States Attorney
`
`Deputy Chief Appellate Attorney, 1986-87; Chief Appellate Attorney, 1987
`
`U.S. Supreme Court: Law clerk to Justice Thurgood Marshall, 1982-83
`
`U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: Law clerk to Judge James L. Oakes, 1981-82
`
`Bar Admissions
`
`
`
`Education
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Current Legal Employment
`
`Prior Full-time Legal Employment
`
`
`
`
`
` 1
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-03026-ALC-GWG Document 124-1 Filed 04/22/25 Page 13 of 57
`
`
`
`
`
`Other Legal Positions
`
`
`
`
`Departmental Disciplinary Committee, App. Div., 1st Department: Member, 1997-2002
`
`New York City Conflicts of Interest Board: Member, Nov. 1995 to March 2005
`
`Handschu Authority: Civilian member, July 1994 to Nov. 1995
`
`Office of Investigations Officer (U.S. v. I.B.T.): Special Counsel (part-time), 1991
`
`Office of Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh, Associate Counsel (part-time), 1988-91
`
`N.Y.S. Commission on Government Integrity: Consultant and special investigator, 1988-90
`
`Columbia University School of Law: Adjunct Professor (part-time), 1990
`
`Office of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York: Special
`Assistant United States Attorney (part-time), September 1987 to June 1988
`
`Fordham University School of Law: Adjunct Assoc. Professor (part-time), 1985-87
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-03026-ALC-GWG Document 124-1 Filed 04/22/25 Page 14 of 57
`
`
`
`Professional Service
`
`
`
`
`American Bar Association:
`
`Commission on the American Jury Project: member, 2006-2008
`
`Commission on Multijurisdictional Practice: reporter, 2000-2002
`
`Coordinating Group on Bioethics and the Law: member, 1997-2003
`
`Criminal Justice Section:
`
`
`
`
`Chair: 2010-2011
`
`
`Chair-elect: 2009-2010
`
`
`Council: member, 2011-2017
`
`
`Criminal Justice Standards Committee: chair, 2017-2021; member, 2013-2017
`
`
`Criminal Justice Standards Task Force on Victims, member, 2020-present
`
`
`First Vice Chair: 2008-2009
`
`
`Ethics, Gideon and Professionalism Committee: co-chair, 2006-09
`
`Death Penalty Representation Project: member, 2006-09, 2014-17
`Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities:
`
`
`
`Chair, Committee on Privacy and Information Protection, 2014-15
`
`Section of Litigation:
`
`
`Task Force on Sound Advice, 2012-13
`
`
`Task Force on Implicit Bias: member, 2011-12
`
`
`Task Force on the Litigation Research Fund: Chair, 2007-2011
`
`
`Division VII (Task Forces): Co-Director, 2007-2008
`
`
`Council member, 2004-07
`
`
`Committee on Law Faculty Involvement: co-chair, 1998-2001, 2003-2004
`
`
`Civil Justice Institute: member, 2001-03
`
`
`Task Force on Ethical Guidelines for Settlement Negotiations: member, 2000-02
`
`
`Ethics 2000 Task Force: member, 1999-2000
`
`
`Committee on Ethics and Professionalism: co-chair, 1995-1998
`
`
`Task Force on the Independent Counsel Act: reporter, 1997-1999
`
`
`Rep. to Sec./Div. Committee on Professionalism and Ethics, 1996-2003
`
`
`Committee on Amicus Curiae Briefs: chair, 1991-1995
`
`Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility: chair, August 2023 to
`date; member, 2008-2011; liaison from the Criminal Justice Section, 2020-2023
`
`Standing Committee on Professionalism: reporter, 2000-2001
`
`Steering Committee for the Symposium on the Multijurisdictional Practice of Law:
`reporter, 1999-2000
`
`Task Force on the Attorney-Client Privilege: reporter, 2004-2010
`
`Task Force on Law Schools and the Profession: consultant, 1991-92
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 3
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-03026-ALC-GWG Document 124-1 Filed 04/22/25 Page 15 of 57
`
`
`
`Association of American Law Schools: Chair, Section of Professional Responsibility, 1999-
`2000
`
`Criminal Law Bulletin: Contributing editor, 1988-1998
`
`Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute: Ethics Advisory Committee: member, 1998-2001
`
`Federal Bar Council:
`
`Board of Trustees, member, 2018 to present
`
`Second Circuit Courts Committee: member, 1994-1997; chair, Subcommittee on
`Criminal Law and Ethics
`Federal Bar Council News: member of the Editorial Board, 1995-2005
`
`
`Inn of Court: master, 2000-2002
`
`International Association of Legal Ethics: Treasurer, 2019-2022; Chair, Conference Planning
`Advisory Committee, 2014-16; Director, 2010-13
`
`Legal Ethics: Member of Advisory Board, 2008 to present
`
`National Conference of Bar Examiners, MPRE Drafting Committee, Chair, 2018 to present;
`Member, 2001-2018
`
`New York City Bar:
`
`Committee on Professional and Judicial Ethics: chair, 2016-2020; member, 1994-1997,
`2003-2006, 2015-16
`
`Litigation Funding Working Group: member, 2018-2020
`
`Executive Committee: member, 2010-14
`
`Working Group on the NYS Bar Exam: member, 2014
`
`White Collar Crime Committee: member, 2013-16
`
`Council on Criminal Justice: member, 2009-13
`
`Delegate to NYS Bar Association, 2003-07
`
`Nominating Committee: member, 2005
`
`Ethics 2000 Committee: member, 1999-2001
`
`Jt. Committee on the Legal Referral Service: chair, 1993-96; member, 1996-2000
`
`Committee on International Access to Justice: member,1999-2000
`
`Committee on Disaster Plan: member, 1996-1997
`
`
`Marden Lecture Committee: member, 1991-1994
`
`Criminal Law Committee: member, 1991-1994
`
`Task Force on Lawyer Training: member, 1992-1994
`
`Corrections Committee: member, 1988-1991
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-03026-ALC-GWG Document 124-1 Filed 04/22/25 Page 16 of 57
`
`
`
`New York County Lawyers’ Association:
`
`Director, 2004-2007, 2008-2012, 2013-2017
`
`Delegate to NYS Bar Association, 2009-2011
`
`Member, Committee on Professional Ethics, 2014 to present
`
`New York State Bar Association:
`
`Committee on Professional Ethics: Chair, 1998-2001; member, 1991 to present
`
`Committee on Standards of Attorney Conduct: member, 1997 to present
`
`House of Delegates member, 2003-2007, 2009-2015
`
`Task Force on Attorney Client Privilege, 2006-2008
`
`Task Force on “Pay to Play” Concerns, member, 1998-2000
`
`New York State Continuing Legal Education Board: Member, 2008-2011
`
`New York State Task Force on Attorney Professionalism and Conduct: Member, 1996-1998
`
`
`
`
`Michael Franck Professional Responsibility Award, given by the ABA Center for Professional
`Responsibility, May 31, 2018
`
`Powell Pierpont Award, given by the N.Y.C. Conflicts of Interest Board “for outstanding service
`to the New York City Conflicts of Interest Board,” May 23, 2006
`
`New York State Bar Association Criminal Justice Section Award for “outstanding contribution
`in the field of criminal law education,” Jan. 23, 2003
`
`Sanford D. Levy Award, given by New York State Bar Association Committee on Professional
`and Judicial Ethics, 1990
`
`Awards
`
`
`
`
`
` 5
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-03026-ALC-GWG Document 124-1 Filed 04/22/25 Page 17 of 57
`
`
`
`PUBLICATIONS
`
`Articles in Law Journals
`
`
`
`
`
`Can Prosecutors’ Offices Preserve Public Confidence in Their Nonpartisanship – and, If So,
`How?, 93 Fordham L. Rev. 1177 (2025) (with Rebecca Roiphe)
`
`Replacing This Old House: Certifying and Regulating New Legal Services Providers, 76 Wash.
`U. J.L. & Pol’y 45 (2025) (with Ellen Murphy)
`
`Public Confidence, Judges, and Politics On and Off the Bench, 87 Law & Contemp. Prob. 183
`(2024) (with Rebecca Roiphe)
`
`Judges in the 21st Century: Confidence Lost?, 87 Law & Contemp. Prob. I (2024) (with Leslie C.
`Levin)
`
`Good Lawyers, Good Sports?: The Professional Identity of Sports Lawyers Representing Not-
`for-Profit Entities, 11 Texas A&M L. Rev. 1019 (2024)
`
`Should State Trial Courts Become Laboratories of UPL Reform?, 92 Fordham L. Rev. 1285
`(2024)
`
`
`Foreword: The Legal Profession and Social Change, 92 Fordham L. Rev. 1239 (2024) (with
`Atinuke O. Adediran)
`
`Depoliticizing Federal Prosecution, 100 Denver L. Rev. 817 (2023) (with Rebecca Roiphe)
`
`Should Prosecutors Be Expected to Rectify Wrongful Convictions?, 10 Tex. A&M L. Rev. 167
`(2023)
`
`Civil Justice at the Crossroads: Should Courts Authorize Nonlawyers to Practice Law?, 75
`Stanford L. Rev. Online 104 (June 2023), https://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/civil-
`justice-at-the-crossroads/
`
` A
`
` Fiduciary Theory of Progressive Prosecution, 60 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 1431 (2023) (with
`Rebecca Roiphe)
`
`De-Weaponizing the Federal Government, Voting Rights & Democracy Forum, Feb. 28, 2023
`(with Rebecca Roiphe), https://fordhamdemocracyproject.com/2023/02/28/de-weaponizing-the-
`federal-government/
`
`Why State Courts Should Authorize Non-Lawyers to Practice Law, Fordham Law Review, 91
`Fordham L. Rev. 1249 (2023)
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-03026-ALC-GWG Document 124-1 Filed 04/22/25 Page 18 of 57
`
`
`
`
`For Deborah L. Rhode, Legal Ethics Scholar, 91 Fordham L. Rev. 1105 (2023)
`
`Can the Fourth Amendment Keep People “Secure in their Persons?”, 102 B.U. L. Rev. Online 92
`(2022)
`
`Lawyers and the Lies They Tell, 69 Wash. U. J. Law & Pol’y 37 (2022) (with Rebecca Roiphe)
`
`Impeaching Legal Ethics, 49 Fla. St. Univ. L. Rev. 447 (2022) (with Rebecca Roiphe)
`
`ABA Model Rule 8.4(g), Discriminatory Speech and the First Amendment, 50 Hofstra L. Rev.
`543 (2022) (with Rebecca Roiphe)
`
`Should Victims’ Views Influence Prosecutors’ Decisions?, 87 Brooklyn L. Rev. 1127 (2022)
`(with Brandon P. Ruben)
`
`Foreword: Subversive Lawyering, 90 Fordham L. Rev. 1945 (2022) (with Bennett Capers)
`
`Selectively Disciplining Advocates, 54 Conn. L. Rev. 151 (2022)
`
`Who Should Police Politicization of the DOJ?, 35 Notre Dame J. L. Ethics & Pub. Pol’y 671
`(2021) (with Rebecca Roiphe)
`
`Mental Health and the Legal Profession: Foreword and Dedication, 89 Fordham L. Rev. 2415
`(2021) (with Deborah Denno)
`
`Technocapital@Biglaw.com, 18 Nw. J. Tech. & Intell. Prop. 265 (2021) (with Carole Silver)
`
`The Judicial Role in Professional Regulation: Foreword, 89 Fordham L. Rev. 1099 (2021)
`
`When Prosecutors Politick: Progressive Law Enforcers Then and Now, 110 J. Crim. L. &
`Criminology 719 (2020) (with Rebecca Roiphe)
`
`May Class Counsel Also Represent Lead Plaintiffs?, 72 Florida L. Rev. 1083 (2020) (with
`Andrew Kent)
`
`Victims’ Rights from a Restorative Perspective, 17 Ohio St. J. Crim. L. 293 (2020) (with Lara
`Bazelon)
`
`Restorative Justice from Prosecutors’ Perspective, 88 Fordham L. Rev. 2287 (2020) (with Lara
`Bazelon)
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 7
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-03026-ALC-GWG Document 124-1 Filed 04/22/25 Page 19 of 57
`
`
`
`Should Criminal Justice Reformers Care About Prosecutorial Ethics Rules?, 58 Duq. L. Rev. 249
`(2020) (with Ellen Yaroshefsky)
`
` A
`
` Fiduciary Theory of Prosecution, 69 Am. U. L. Rev. 805 (2020) (with Rebecca Roiphe)
`
`
`The Supreme Court’s Supervisory Authority over Federal Criminal Cases: The Warren Court
`Revolution That Might Have Been, 49 Stetson L. Rev. 241 (2020)
`
`Punishment Without Process: “Victim Impact” Proceedings for Dead Defendants, Fordham Law
`Review Online, vol. 88 (2019) (with Rebecca Roiphe), http://fordhamlawreview.org/wp-
`content/uploads/2019/11/Green-Roiphe_November_FLRO_4.pdf
`
`Regulating Prosecutors’ Courtroom Misconduct, 50 Loy. U. Chi. L.J. 797 (2019)
`
`Foreword: In Honor of Prof. Bennett L. Gershman, 16 Ohio St. J. Crim L. 291 (2019) (with Peter
`Joy & Ellen Yaroshefsky)
`
`Prosecutorial Discretion: The Difficulty and Necessity of Public Inquiry, 123 Dickinson L. Rev.
`589 (2019)
`
`Prosecutors in the Court of Public Opinion, 57 Duquesne L. Rev. 271 (2019)
`
`Judicial Activism in Trial Courts, 74 N.Y.U Ann. Survey of Am. Law 365 (2019) (with Rebecca
`Roiphe)
`
`May Federal Prosecutors Take Direction from the President?, 87 Fordham L. Rev. 1817 (2019)
`(with Rebecca Roiphe)
`
`Lawyers in Government Service – A Foreword, 87 Fordham L. Rev. 1791 (2019)
`
`Can the President Control the Department of Justice?, 70 Ala. L. Rev. 1 (2018) (with Rebecca
`Roiphe)
`
`Case Study 2: Advising Grassroots Organizations, 47 Hofstra L. Rev. 33 (2018) (with Marci
`Seville)
`
`Learning to Live with Judicial Partisanship: A Response to Cassandra Burke Robertson, 70 Fla.
`L. Rev. F. 114 (2018) (wi