As I prepared to attend this inaugural meeting, it seemed that it would all be prepatory and introductory. But the RRC just voted to create a sub-committee to (1) propose a standard by which some rules might be considered in an expedited way; and (2) propose whether or not to fast track a new rule on proecutors' ethics. (They may not propose to fast track it and, even if they do, the whole commission may decide not to, or the State Bar may decide not to recommend any such fast tracking.)
As our readers know, ABA Model Rule 3.8 has a pretty full treatment of prosecutors' ethical duties. The currently existing rule in California, 5-110, which has no accompanying comments or discussion, only provides as follows:
Rule 5-110 Performing the Duty of Member in Government Service
A member in government service shall not institute or cause to be instituted criminal charges when the member knows or should know that the charges are not supported by probable cause. If, after the institution of criminal charges, the member in government service having responsibility for prosecuting the charges becomes aware that those charges are not supported by probable cause, the member shall promptly so advise the court in which the criminal matter is pending.
The potential fast tracking appears to have been prompted by a letter from the Supreme Court of California and perhaps as well by a letter by Barry Scheck and Laurie Levenson urging California's State Bar to end its status as the only jurisdiction in the US without a comprehensive rule of ethics for prosecutors. We should learn in May whether or not the RRC will try to fast track this issue or will treat the issue with its big package of rules expected to be delivered in 2017.
[edited since posting, for clarity]