Senate ethics subcommittee hears Senator Champion’s request for advisory opinion on past pro bono work

ST. PAUL — The Minnesota Senate Subcommittee on Ethical Conduct met April 22 to hear Senator Bobby Joe Champion’s request for a public advisory opinion under Senate Rule 55.2 about whether his prior pro bono legal representation of Salem Inc. and Reverend Jerry McAfee created a potential conflict of interest with his sponsorship of Senate File 2970 (2023) and Senate File 2978 (2025).

Senate counsel Andrea Stengel opened with an overview of the advisory-opinion process and the statute the subcommittee applies. "This rule allows a member to request this subcommittee to serve in an advisory capacity and issue recommendations and advice on a potential conflict of interest," Stengel said, and she summarized Minnesota Statute section 10A.07 and Senate Rule 56.4, noting the statute’s three elements for a potential conflict: an official action or decision, a substantial effect on the member’s financial interests (or those of an associated business), and an effect greater than that on others in the same business class, profession, or occupation.

Senator Champion testified that his representation of Salem Inc. and Reverend Jerry McAfee was provided pro bono and ended with a mutual settlement executed on Oct. 7, 2022. "I never received any funds at any time for my representation and I had no expectation of receiving any money," Champion said. He walked the subcommittee through a binder of exhibits, describing a mediated settlement and a mutual settlement agreement and release dated Oct. 7, 2022, and a series of proposed stipulations of dismissal the plaintiff’s attorney later filed in February 2023.

David Sowell, attorney for Senator Champion, told the subcommittee that the pro bono nature of the work and its completion before either Senate file was introduced meant there was no financial interest to trigger the statutory conflict test. "Without a financial interest, there can be no conflict of interest and there is no financial interest here," Sowell said in closing, asking the subcommittee to issue an advisory opinion that no conflict existed with respect to Senate Files 2970 and 2978.

Subcommittee members questioned Champion about the timing and nature of the legal work and about the legislation. Champion described the bills as community violence-prevention and jobs initiatives that led to a total appropriation of $6,000,000: $3,000,000 for 21 Days of Peace (an initiative connected to Salem Inc.) and $3,000,000 for Mother’s Love, with the appropriation administered by Community Action Partnership of Hennepin County. "The appropriation was to Community Action Partnership of Hennepin County," Champion said. He emphasized that the appropriation process required agency contracts and performance-based reimbursement, and that sponsorship of the bills was unrelated to the foreclosure litigation he had handled pro bono.

Several senators raised procedural questions about the timing of advisory opinions and whether this subcommittee often issues opinions about past conduct. Counsel Stengel and other committee counsel cited prior advisory opinions from 2004–2010 and a 2008 opinion involving similar legislative questions as precedents in which the subcommittee reviewed past conduct. Some members said they were uncomfortable issuing an advisory opinion about events after the fact, particularly when one of the bills had been enacted in 2023 and the appropriation already distributed; others noted that advisory opinions can be requested and used as a defense in subsequent complaints.

The subcommittee did not take public testimony and made no formal ruling at the hearing. Chair Pappas announced that members will reconvene Thursday, April 24 at 11 a.m. to deliberate and that the advisory opinion process under Rule 55.2 would be used to provide written advice; she reminded members that an advisory opinion, if adopted at a public meeting, may be used by Champion as a defense to a complaint. The committee also noted a separate probable-cause hearing on an ethics complaint is scheduled for Friday, May 2.

The subcommittee’s next public meeting will continue deliberations; no vote or final advisory opinion was issued at the April 22 session.