Attention: open in a new window. PrintE-mail

AM Law Daily, October 24, 2011

In Maples Case, Sullivan & Cromwell Blames the Associates

By Tom Huddleston Jr.

Sullivan & Cromwell, represented by former U.S. solicitor general and Latham & Watkins appellate partner Gregory Garre, has asked the Court to give [Cory] Maples another opportunity to appeal his death sentence.…In arguing on Maples’s behalf, Garre and Sullivan & Cromwell pin at least equal blame on [Clara] Ingen-Housz and [Jaasi] Munanka, saying that they as individuals – not the firm – handled the case; that their failure to leave forwarding addresses upon taking new jobs while their client’s bid for an appeal was active rises “to the level of abandonment”.…S&C claims that when it comes to pro bono cases, its lawyers take them on as individuals….Garre reiterated that position in an August 1 reply brief (PDF) filed with the Supreme Court. In the filing, Garre argued that Sullivan & Cromwell itself did not represent Maples and that “while it may be more typical for a firm to assume the representation, the firm is not required to do so.” He also cited a New York City Bar pro bono committee tip sheet that says a lawyer can represent pro bono clients in an “individual capacity”; can keep representing them after leaving a specific firm; and should discuss with the client at the start of a pro bono representation whether the work is being done individually or via the employer.

The entire article may be read here.