MFIA Clinic Backs Public Access in Prosecutor Misconduct Case
The Media Freedom and Information Access (MFIA) clinic at Yale Law School has filed a legal brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, supporting public access to attorney discipline records, especially when they involve prosecutors accused of misconduct. The clinic filed the brief on behalf of a coalition of New York-based news organizations, a group that includes The New York Times, ProPublica, The Associated Press, Dow & Company, Newsday, and other members of the press across the state.
At the center of the case is a New York law — Judiciary Law § 90(10) — that keeps all records and proceedings related to attorney discipline completely secret, unless a public punishment is eventually handed down. The plaintiffs, Civil Rights Corps and a group of law professors, had filed misconduct complaints against Queens prosecutors whom judges found had broken ethical rules in criminal cases. But when the state refused to share basic information about whether any discipline was imposed, the plaintiffs sued. A federal judge ruled in their favor, finding that the total secrecy violated the First Amendment.
MFIA’s brief urges the appeals court to uphold that ruling. The brief states that the First Amendment extends a qualified right of public access to attorney discipline records — just as it does for most judicial proceedings. According to the brief, “public access to attorney disciplinary proceedings improves the functioning of ‘that very process,’” and helps ensure the system is fair, consistent, and trustworthy.
According to the brief, secrecy has made it nearly impossible for the public to evaluate whether New York’s attorney discipline system is working. For example, between 2001 and 2009, only 1% of over 90,000 complaints resulted in public punishment — and prosecutors were almost never disciplined, even in cases where courts overturned convictions due to misconduct. In one review of 30 such cases, only one prosecutor faced discipline; others were promoted.
“This case involves state prosecutors who deliberately secured wrongful convictions. Yet New York and the State Bar association believe that accountability is best served by shielding the disciplinary process from public view,” said Anthony Cosentino ’26, a Yale Law student involved in the case. “The First Amendment says otherwise. The public has a long-established right to observe the workings of its government — especially when the integrity of the legal system is at stake.”
The brief also points out that many other states already allow public access to disciplinary decisions, especially once a formal process has begun. It emphasizes that transparency is especially important when prosecutors — who have significant power over people’s lives — are accused of wrongdoing.
“When attorneys are accused of serious wrongdoing, the First Amendment guarantees the public’s right to know. Yet New York’s blanket secrecy over attorney discipline threw a veil over attorney misconduct — going so far as to shield even prosecutors from accountability,” said Raymond Perez ’26, another law student involved in the case. “I am proud to have represented a coalition of New York press organizations — from The New York Times to the Syracuse Post-Standard — who vindicate the public right to remain informed. We deserve transparency from our legal system, especially from those who we grant the power to prosecute in our name.”
The MFIA clinic team was led by Floyd Abrams Lecturer in Law David A. Schulz ’78, the director of the clinic, along with contributions from Yale Law School students Nick Jones ’27, Raymond Perez ’26, Anthony Cosentino ’26, and Visiting Clinical Lecturer in Law Tobin Raju. The case continues the clinic’s mission to promote government transparency and protect press freedom.
A decision from the 2nd Circuit is expected later this year.
