Only if you consider this an answer:
“The fund was involved in litigations. I was a board member of the fund.”
Or this:
“To the extent that we looked at the organization’s legal work, it was to ensure that it was consistent with the broad mission statement of the fund.”
There was no mention of the fact that she was on the litigation committee as far as I can see.
Some of it turns on distinctions that don't make all that much difference: Sessions suggested that she was more involved in the litigation activities of the Puerto Rican fund than she had said she was (and she denied ever denying that she wasn't involved, if you can follow that).
But Sotomayor, who was a board member of the committee, may or may not have reviewed particular documents, but those who worked with her at the time, more than 20 years ago, told the Los Angeles Times when she was nominated that Sotomayor was sympathetic to the fund's mission. And Sotomayor herself hasn't said that she wasn't. Her association with the fund is clear. What isn't is whether that makes any difference now with regard to her judicial approach.
And she helped raise funds for the organization, which means to me she went around REPRESENTING the fund, and it’s work! Don’t tell me she didn’t know what she was sellin, thats pure unfiltered Bull$h!t.