To say this was a "hot bench" was a bit of an understatement.
In any event, here's a hiss at the people at NYU who prepared that bench brief. Not only was it badly written, but it neglected some critical authority that modifies the meaning of a couple of the cases cited in it. It appears that the students had done a much better job of preparation themselves.
As an aside, though, attorneys dissatisfied with aspects of the profession who do not engage with local law schools are missing an opportunity to influence the profession. And in Illinois, where we have no CLE requirements, there's no excuse for not giving five or six hours a year to the future of the profession. I suppose, on the other hand, that a CLE requirement here would make little sense; it's easier to get a death sentence overturned in this state than it is to exclude a truly bad actor from the profession in a contested ethics proceeding, and a CLE requirement presupposes that the offered sessions are worthwhile.