Sullivan & Cromwell’s Life-or-Death Mistake?
Leading law firm blows deadline in death penalty case.
More than a decade ago, Cory Maples of Alabama murdered two people. After an evening of heavy drinking, playing pool, and riding around in a friend’s car, Maples killed two friends, shooting them execution-style.
According to court documents, he signed a confession, “stating that he: (1) shot both victims around midnight; (2) had drunk six or seven beers by about 8 p.m., but ‘didn’t feel very drunk’; and (3) did not know why he decided to kill the two men. Faced with this confession, Maples’s trial attorneys argued that Maples was guilty of murder, but not capital murder.”
A jury found Maples guilty and sentenced him to death.
Maples appealed his capital murder conviction with the help of attorneys at Sullivan & Cromwell:
Maples subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief pursuant to Alabama Rule of Criminal Procedure 32, claiming, inter alia, that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate or present evidence of: (1) Maples’s mental health history; (2) his intoxication at the time of the crime; and (3) his alcohol and drug history.
The trial court dismissed Maples’ Rule 32 petition, and sent notice of the decision to the attorneys at Sullivan & Cromwell and to local Alabama counsel. There was a 42-day period for filing a notice of appeal, but all the lawyers involved dropped the ball on the case, PepsiCo-style.
So what’s the explanation for S&C’s missing the deadline for filing an appeal?
From our tipster:
Basically, Sullivan & Cromwell forgot to file a notice of appeal for a death row inmate, causing him to procedurally default all his ineffective-assistance claims. Oops!
Here’s the explanation, from the Eleventh Circuit [pdf]:
The Alabama trial court clerk sent copies of the Rule 32 Order, filed on May 22, 2003, to: (1) Maples’s two attorneys (Jaasi Munanka and Clara Ingen-Housz) with the law firm of Sullivan & Cromwell in New York, who were attorneys of record and had performed all of the substantive work on Maples’s Rule 32 case; and (2) Maples’s local counsel (John G. Butler, Jr.) in Alabama. No one disputes that both Butler and Sullivan & Cromwell received copies of the Rule 32 Order dismissing Maples’s petition.Neither Maples nor any of his three attorneys filed a notice of appeal from the dismissal of Maples’s Rule 32 petition within the 42 days required by Alabama Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(b)(1). Butler took no action whatsoever after receiving the Rule 32 Order. Sullivan & Cromwell received the Rule 32 Order but instead of opening the envelope that contained it, the firm returned it to the Alabama circuit court clerk.
Apparently attorneys Munanka and Ingen-Housz had left Sullivan & Cromwell. Although arrangements had been made for new attorneys to take over the pro bono matter, they had not filed notice of the change of counsel with the Alabama trial court.
The state’s attorney wrote Maples a letter letting him know he had missed the deadline to appeal the Petition’s dismissal, but that he could still file a federal habeas petition.
Thereafter, Maples’s mother contacted Sullivan & Cromwell. On Maples’s behalf, new attorneys from the Sullivan & Cromwell firm requested that the Alabama trial court re-issue its Rule 32 Order so that he might file a timely appeal. The trial court refused, stating in an order that it was “unwilling to enter into subterfuge in order to gloss over mistakes made by counsel for [Maples].”
New Sullivan & Cromwell attorneys helped Maples file his federal habeas petition, but that petition was denied:
The district court concluded that: (1) Maples’s ineffective-assistance claims were procedurally defaulted because Maples did not timely file an appeal of the dismissal of his Rule 32 petition; (2) even if Maples’s default were the result of his three post-conviction counsel’s failing to file a Rule 32 appeal, such ineffectiveness could not establish cause for the default because there is no constitutional right to post-conviction counsel; and (3) the Alabama appellate courts’ decisions that Maples was not entitled to a sua sponte jury instruction on manslaughter due to voluntary intoxication was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law.
The decision was affirmed by the Eleventh Circuit in a per curiam opinion. Cory Maples remains on death row.
Maples v. Allen [U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (PDF)]
Cory Maples [Canadian Coalition Against The Death Penalty]
Maples v. Allen [Leagle]
(134) Comments
Comments
first to say oh snap
first1.
The lesson here is not to fuck with Rule 32.
--Someone who knows better.
ironically, this was an ineffective assistance case.
FISRT
who will handle the ineffective appellate cousel case?
Sullcrom will kill you.
FIRST TO SAY, hey, at least the HLS kid didn't EXECUTE HIS TWO FRIENDS!
A public defender would have never made such a simple, but fatal, mistake.
Civil litigators should never touch criminal cases.
tough luck
FATALITY
Maples lists his favorite non-fiction author as Shakespeare.
The real question is: do I have a violin small enough?
Where's that Res Ipsa guy when you need him? He would be all over these FTT hacks.
good. kill him asap.
This proves it. Sullcrom is a first tier toilet.
Toilet tally for the day
Harvard
Sullivan and Cromwell
Cravath
If you'll excuse me, I will flush now.
Eh, no harm no foul. The guy murdered two of his friends execution style. I wouldn't lose any sleep over it if I were the S&C attorneys.
Ah, shucks. The only thing better would be if big firm lawyers didn't spend so much of their limited pro bono time helping MURDERERS.
There are poor people out there who haven't brutally killed people. Maybe that would be a better use of your charitable impulse?
Let this be a lesson to all who read ATL! Taking a real pro bono case will be the death of you. Stick to representing the local opera company.
S&C should not be defending murderers. Don't they know we have an island full of jihadi terrorists, who also need lawyers?
Doesn't this prove his point?
Oh dear. The first law firm I called home has done me proud again. In their defense, how could they be expected to file a timely appeal when there was money to be made in overworkng in a capital murder case (and stealthily laying off) associates to help the great Titan of Wall Street (Goldman) maintain its god-given right to make unseemly amounts of money by shuffling paper around.
-- Lawyer Gay
He killed two people Who cares what his mental state or BAC was. All you need to worry about is finding a vein. SullCrom can't help with that.
There won't be an ineffective assistance of counsel case (or at least not a winning one). Supreme Court has held that the right to counsel extends only to direct appeals, so for a collateral challenge you don't have a right to counsel and the answer is basically that if you don't have a right to counsel at all it doesn't matter if that counsel is ineffective in assisting you.
Check out Wainwright v. Torna, 455 U.S. 586, 587-88 and Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 752.
3 - Actually, the lesson here is not to kill anybody.
Finally, a method to effectively end the reptitive, bleeding-heart appeals for those that provide nothing for society. Can we move up the execution date and hit NEXT on the 'Now Serving' board?
Ah 24. I remember you. You sat in the front row of all of my law school classes.
All the guy did was murder two buddies execution style. And you hate-mongers want to execute him?
Alabama, you say?
* sniff sniff *
Racism is in the air.
24--If this is correct, then I rescind my warning against taking real pro bono cases. It sounds like you can take one of these cases to cut your teeth on, without fear of liability if you screw it up. This is a perfect pro bono case.
19
Maybe they did it so they could actually work for paying clients. Could the economy be turning?
Finally a method for ending the repetitive, bleeding-heart death penalty appeals for those that serve no useful purpose in society. Can we move up the execution date, save some tax dollars, and hit the NEXT button on the 'Now Serving' sign?
28
You fail. Racism you say? I would dare to guess that the attys, Munanka (Mukaka???) and Ingen-Housz are minorities.
The best part of all of this is that as we speak there is a plaintiff's firm trying to recruit this guy's mother in a malpractice claim against S & C. So in the end, guy's mom gets paid off for having a muderer for a son.
This is a symptom of layoffs and the major turnover at law firms. I worked at a firm that rhymes with "Schwatham" and we were constantly screwing up domestic violence immigration petitions because attys were leaving so often.
This guy's name is Cory Maples, not Goldman Sachs. And it's not about $$$, just about life or death.
33 - You're on to something. S&C should pay Mrs. Maples a lot of $$$.
33 beat me to it. I smell some malpractice, with the (arguable) result of death.
how do you miss a fucking deadline?
The chance to pwn a NY law firm doesn't present itself to the 11th Circuit very often, but when it does, they make sure to identify all those NY lawyers who screwed the pooch.
I mean, these attorneys did nothing other move to another firm and only forgot to file a notice of withdrawal and yet they are brandished as murderers. I hear the 11th Circuit.
Sincerely,
Cravath (no bonus) associate.
Guys at my high school used to miss deadlines all the time. It was no big deal.
This is why you need to avoid pro-bono at all costs
Sullivan & Cromwell has absolutely no business taking on pro bono cases such as this. They are simply incompetent. Big civil lawsuits, yes. Bailing out investment firms (now banks) yes. Huge corporate deals where nobody can see the sliding pieces, yes. Corporate whitewash, yes. Criminal cases, no. That is why when S&C's partners/associates that get busted for insider trading go to other firms for a defense.
II think they should get hit up for malpractice.
27-
Hahahahahaha
Nice to see the typical jackasses commenting here. By all means, let's throw due process out the window since the guy's obviously a scumbag. Only good people have rights.
"Cory Maples of Alabama was convicted of murdering two people more than a decade ago. In reaching its verdict, the jury found that after an evening of heavy drinking, playing pool, and riding around in a friend’s car, Maples killed two friends, shooting them execution-style."
Kash, fixed for you.
I hope this hits S&C where it counts. Any prospective client would have to be crazy to hire a firm that does such a poor job of supervising its attorneys and fails to put in place a transition plan when associates exit the firm's revolving door.
Why do big firm lawyers think they can do everything?
-Big Firm Lawyer
If confronted with incontrovertible evidence that the "top" firms aren't in fact "top" at all because they make errors that could be avoided with a level of attention necessary for a high school sophomore to finish his chemistry homework, one thing you can do is blame your earlier bad business practices and overhiring and the layoffs that they created. That way, no one will be able to blame you for procedurally defaulting the rights of a death row inmate, and you can continue to justify your ridiculous billing rates in a down economy on the grounds that you are filled with "top talent." While the opponent is considering this, follow up with a hook kick and a palm heel, then its the takedown and transition to an inverted heel hook. Never forget, law is a street fight.
44 -- spot on. Even scum like this convict has the right to counsel that can competently complete basic tasks, like filing an appeal in a timely manner. S&C better be prepared to pay up on this one. And the firm's reputation ought to be dirt after this.
46: Surely you don't think this would happen to a paying or high-falutin' institutional "pro bono" client.
So where is the witty comment from Partner Emeritus about S&C's mistake? Is it a peer firm PE? Is it a preeminent firm? Perhaps your silence confirms that this is your firm?
Hang the dip shit.
The term SOL has never been more relevant.
Walrus is the bomb
When they execute this guy, I hope his former attorneys are required to watch him take his last breath, knowing full well that they fucked up big time. The scumbag deserves to die, just like his incompetent attorneys. Kill them all.
It's enough to make you wanna get loaded and take your attorneys out for a drive before executing them...
In all fairness, there was a dissenting opinion. S&C ought to move for rehearing en banc.
@45
I agree with your rewrite save for the use of the Oxford comma.
For all of the fucking morons bashing S&C for taking cases like this, there is no constitutional right to counsel in a collateral proceeding (i.e. habeas corpus or an equivalent state remedy). That means the state doesn't have to provide counsel, so public defenders do not or cannot take these cases. If major law firms weren't willing to take ineffective assistance cases like this, there would be no remedy for an indigent convict to remedy the denial of his constitutional right to effective assistance.
That said, somebody should be disbarred over this.
This is awful.
56 -- are you kidding?!? There's no, NO, excuse for failing to timely file a notice of appeal. Particually for a firm of S&C's purported prestige. Whatever the circumstances were involving the departures of the attorneys previously handling this case, the firm had an obligation to its clients to ensure that all of their cases were promptly reassigned, and that no critical deadlines would be missed. S&C blew it big time.
55 - murder humor is the best kind
Can't wait to see the quotes in the infobox for S&C in next year's edition of the Vault book.
"Pro bono hours count up to 100, 200 if you kill someone"
57 -- who gives a f*** about an oxford comma?
bravo, 27, bravo.
The two lawyers are now with Hogan and Simpson respectively.
I was doing tobacco litigation at Dechert in Philly in '01- they coaxed this partner out of retirement and literally worked him to death.
He was a good guy who was very accomplished and well-educated, but he got a TTTombstone before his time.
Anyone else know people that Dechert killed?
'Ol Sparky wants a sit-down
The dissent on S&C's mistake:
"[T]he interests of justice also require that Maples be permitted review of his claims when the alleged default of those claims occurred through no fault of his own. Rather, any such default is entirely the fault of his postconviction counsel, and this court is allowing him to be put to death because of that negligence."
This is actually kind of a hot issue right now. Later this term, in Holland v. Florida, the Supreme Court will wrestle with whether gross attorney negligence can justify equitable tolling of the statute of limitations for filing a federal habeas corpus action.
I can make all kinds of comments about S&C and the disgusting nature of what this guy did, but the bottom line is FLORIDA CANNOT KILL A MAN ON A TECHNICALITY. Morally, this is just plain wrong.
I have been a proponent of the death penality because I felt that the system gave people multiple chances to prove innocense or judicial error. I don't see how you can support the death penalty if this process does not exist. The court should let the guy file the Rule 32 appeal because it is the JUST thing to do. If the guy is an animal, he will be put down soon enough.
This is not Iran...
27, i bow down to you
One other thing, can you imagine being one of these attorneys on the night of his early execution. The thought of such a monumental error and the burden that goes with it is so awful.
I hereby pardon Mr. Maples. Now take care of your lawyers -- execution style.
Barack x.
Ridiculous rule. They should fine counsel by the day instead.
I understand that many people at S&C don't make it from Day 5 to Day 6, but it's telling that not a single one of the main characters from the litigation division were involved with this case.
If the notice sent to S&C was returned to the Clerk's office unopened, then it wasn't sufficiently noticed. Period. WTF? Doesn't Alabama have rules of procedure? Why didn't someone at the Clerk's Office pick up a mother-f*****g phone and call S&C to find out why it was returned? I can understand blowing off a notice in civil cases, but a death row matter? Wow, is Alabama a blight on the USA.
Part of being a good lawyer is knowing what you don't know. I'm a pretty good civil litigator, but I got mauled the one time I stepped into the criminal arena. But my heart still goes out to the S&C kids who dropped the ball. It's an awful, easily-made mistake that should have never happened. And they'll have to live with it...
@ 60. True, but that's an idealized version of the world you live in. Practice long enough, you'll know that EVERYONE makes mistakes. It happens, despite your best efforts. I want to know where the supervising attorney was in all of this? Those kids HAD to have been supervised, right?
@ 70. Right (except it's Alabama, actually). Procedurally, I find the real villain to be the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals, which denied the motion for leave to file an appeal out of time. Sure it's fun sticking it to S&C, but you DON'T DO IT IN A DEATH PENALTY CASE. Instead, you grant the motion, issue a written opinion making fun of S&C, and order the attorneys to attend 20 hours of CLE. And then you hear the appeal on the merits and deny it like you were going to originally...
Cite this as Case Study #1 why appellate judges shouldn't be elected, IMHO.
-- ET!
It's only malpractice if it would have turned out differently, eh workers of the world?
I guarantee that if Maples was a paying client this outrage would not have happened.
Was this a published opinion? Are these lawyers' names going to be memorialized in the pages of the Federal Reporter?
The folks talking about malpractice should check out the elements--good luck proving innocence.
80 - yes, 11th Circuit website has it listed as a published opinion.
I love 54.
Despite this, I'm sure some local legal aid bureau will farm out another DP appeal to S&C. Their thinking will go, "They're a big NYC firm and some of their partners bill at $1,000/hr. They've got to be good lawyers, right?" This is what is called the Richard Fuld fallacy.
84 -- Rule 32 isn't an appeal, it's a collateral attack. Legal aid typically doesn't handle those. 81 -- don't have to prove innocence, read the fucking opinion before calling out others. The arguments he defaulted related to sentencing, not guilt/innocence.
They deserve all the criticism they get. I wonder if they allow/encourage their people to take garden variety indigent defense for pro bono hours, or do they only give a shit about the criminal system when it gets them pub for doing big death cases? There's tons of people out there that could benefit from their help who didn't, like, kill two people for no reason. But I guess there's no prestige to doing something that could actually help society, only in fighting for someone who doesn't really deserve it.
85 - I believe 81's reference was to the fact that you have to show actual innocence to win a civil suit for malpractice in a criminal case, unrelated to any habeas or appellate proceedings in the criminal case. That's what I learned as well in PR, though I don't know if it's an element in most or all states.
Ingen-Housz is still at Simpson Thacher
Better pay up those insurance premiums, S&C. This guy can get rich while sitting death row.
It is only a "life or death mistake" if the guy deserved to live. All signs point to "no" but thanks for playing.
All those of you who say this only matters if he was going to live are missing the point of due process.
It sounds like a mail clerk's problem, not the lawyers' fault (though if there hadn't been a change of hands, someone probably would have noticed that there hadn't been an order yet and would have been getting Pacer announcements or something). Or S&C's docket clerk who should have been following up to see who was covering the case, and who would receive any new notices. I'm really surprised that S&C let this slip through the cracks. If mail comes to a firm and the attorney's name is unknown, firm mail clerks usually send out an email asking if anyone knows who it is for. Did S&C have staff layoffs recently?
It sounds like a mail clerk's problem, not the lawyers' fault (though if there hadn't been a change of hands, someone probably would have noticed that there hadn't been an order yet and would have been getting Pacer announcements or something). Or S&C's docket clerk who should have been following up to see who was covering the case, and who would receive any new notices. I'm really surprised that S&C let this slip through the cracks. If mail comes to a firm and the attorney's name is unknown, firm mail clerks usually send out an email asking if anyone knows who it is for. Did S&C have staff layoffs recently?
How is it pro bono to help a murderer evade just punishment? So many more people are deserving of S & C's resources. This guy isn't even trying to argue he's innocent.
11 FTW!
Alright, listen up you ignorant fucks: S&C does not represent pro bono clients; individual attorneys, in their capacities as members of the bar, represent pro bono clients. I imagine S&C does it this way for exactly the sort of liability issues being raised by you morons.
If a ball was dropped here, it was dropped by two individual lawyers, not an entire firm.
we have a bas rutten avator now? see, e.g., 91.
awesome! one of the greatest MMA fighters ever. and he's hilarious.
"the bottom line is FLORIDA CANNOT KILL A MAN ON A TECHNICALITY. Morally, this is just plain wrong."
First, it's Alabama-try to keep up. Second, they're not killing him because of a technicality: they're killing him because he was duly convicted and sentenced to death for a pointless double murder of two entirely innocent people. The only technicality involved was a purely discretionary route of collateral attack that everyone knows wasn't being pursued in good faith anyway.
Let's just shoot the fucker and then put the resources saved onto the case of a death row inmate who might have been wrongfully convicted, rather than someone who wants to cry about their mitigating circumstances.
Most of the time, deadlines aren't life and death. This time it may have been. :(
Pointless? Single homicides can be pointless. If you have a double or more, the guy was clearly trying for some reason.
Just think about it. When's the last time you heard of a "he fucked up" mitigator on a double homicide that didn't involve a car accident?
Um, if that's the case 96, then why did the case stay with Sullivan & Cromwell after Munanka and Ingen-Housz left the firm?
What a shock...S&C screwed up. Maybe they are not as good as they think they are...
Regardless of who screwed up, 70 is absolutely correct (other than the part about Florida). It is so mindlessly, offensively obscene to execute a man because his lawyers made a paperwork error. Remember the outrage you felt when that cute little kid brought a spork to school and was threatened with suspension under the school's zero-tolerance policy? Rules were rules, the school said, no exceptions. Well, try to be at least 10% as outraged over this. And if you think it makes any difference that one person was a cute kid and the other an admitted murderer, you're not a competent lawyer.
So S&C did a stealth layoff on Munanka and Ingen-Housz? Who just voluntarily leaves a firm right now?
S&C = complete TTT
Should have hired Vincent LaGuardia Gambini.
70, 101 and 103 are right. First, there weren't just two S&C associates and local counsel on the matter, there were S&C partners and very experienced death penalty lawyers from a NY public interest group, all assisted by an Alabama public interest law firm. S&C partners and associates continued to be involved after the two associates left and prior to the trial court's ruling, which came out a year after the two associates had left the firm.
Associates leave firms all the time, that's why partners are generally on all pleadings (and should have been here) - so someone is "of record" no matter the churn.
But at the end of the day, the dissent is right and it is crazy for the Court not to substantively address the claims of a death row inmate -- its not a civil default.
Upon further and deeper reflection, S&C has now concluded his trial defense was actually highly competent and effective. So no harm, no foul and no $$$$.
Who cares? I'm not surprised by this mistake because it's "Sullivan and Cromwell." They're just regular people working there who make mistakes like everyone else.
It is a procedural default of those claims. Under the AEDPA (which controls federal habeas) if you didn't raise it in the state and you could have, you're screwed; (unless you can show "actual innocence" of the crime, but that is another topic). Missing a deadline is treated the same as a denying a claim on the merits. Given that there is no right to post-conviction assistance, I really don't see how this case is going anywhere. (especially in Alabama.)
I hate to break it to all these folks who think his collateral attack was a technicality totally without merit - but voluntary intoxication is a defense to specific intent crimes (e.g., first degree murder). Therefore, it could've helped him beat the murder rap and gotten some other non-capital homicide conviction. So, yeah, it could've saved his life. As for this guy being a piece of crap and not worthy of help - the law makes distinctions between homicides. Some are self-defense, some are manslaughter, some are murder. Helping a convicted killer get an appropriate sentence is a good thing. It is pro bono publico.
Dumb mistake, but so what if they failed to file notice of an almost certainly frivolous appeal. This guy got a fair trial and was convicted. He had an opportunity to appeal in State court, and his appeals were rejected. His post conviction relief petitions were going to accomplish nothing except delaying the inevitable. He has been on death row for how long already? A decade? Sorry if I dont shed a tear.
What I'm trying to figure out is why Kash calls out Munanka and Ingen-Housz and then notes, almost as a parenthetical, that, oh yeah, they weren't at S&C by the time the papers came in. So give us the names of the attorneys who actually fucked up the appeal, please!
I think it's insane that the Court did not contact S&C when the papers were returned. Sometimes, mail gets lost! No attorney at S&C ever set eyes on the notice - and the Court must have been aware of that when the papers were returned unopened.
That being said, it's ridiculous that S&C would return papers instead of trying to find the attorney now handling the matter.
Every firm that I"ve been at, whenever something came from a Court with my name on it, they opened it and someone reviewed it to avoid the very problem encountered here. Then they forwarded it to me.
Surprised S&C would simply RETURN an envelope, UNOPENED, to the C of Ct.
That, my friends, is bad practice.
Well put 70.
As one who supports the death penalty, I can't go for it when it is procedurally flawed through no fault of the condemned.
Not sure what the actual remedy is though.
Civil litigators, no matter how well respected their firm, have no business doing high end criminal litigation. It's like performing open heart surgery as a dentist.
The criminal system will eat you, and your client, alive. Keep your ass where it belongs -- in your leather chair where everything can be fixed with an infusion of cash.
Jesus fucking Christ SullCrom, maybe it's time to revisit your policy for handling court documents. They had better bust their asses to get this one turned around.
@77, you wrote, "@ 60. True, but that's an idealized version of the world you live in. Practice long enough, you'll know that EVERYONE makes mistakes. It happens, despite your best efforts...."
My comment hardly reflects an "idealized version of the world I live in." I've been practicing (BIGLAW) for 18 years and in that time have come to appreciate the fact that there are certain mistakes that can NEVER be made if you care about your professional reputation. At the top of that list is letting a statute of limitations expire and failing to timely file an appeal. This is blatant malpractice on S&C's part -- the firm/managing partners have ultimate responsibility to ensure that nobody blows a deadline when attorneys leave the firm.
-60
Not surprising that S&C dropped the ball on this. They are an especially greedy bunch over there, and unfortunately this sort of egregious error reflects the money-centric mindset of a morally bankrupt profession.
EPIC. FAIL. *switch*
@60/118. I concur wholeheartedly - didn't mean to imply otherwise - it's a crystal-clear case of malpractice. I also concur that the managing partner at S&C should stand up on this one. I guess I was differentiating between the objective (stuff like this should NEVER happen) and the subjective (well, sometime it does). And I feel the system should be robust enough to tolerate mistakes like this...
Mistakes happen, even to careful lawyers. From your remark about caring for one's professional reputation, I suspect you understand my point. Those young lawyers' professional reputations have been irrevocably damaged. Objectively, that's likely a proper outcome (I wouldn't hire them at my shop). But it doesn't stop me from feeling (a) sorry for them, and (b) mad at S&C for the supervisory failure. As far as I could tell, the kids were 3rd year associates at the time of the malpractice - barely qualified to wipe their own bottoms, as far as I'm concerned.
But life is unfair, & so be it. I'm just put-out that the supervising attorneys at S&C aren't named in the 11th circuit's opinion (which says only "arrangements had been made within the firm for other attorneys at Sullivan & Cromwell to take over representation of Maples"). Those are the real baddies, IMHO. And it's them who deserve to be named in the 11th Cir.'s opinion.
-ET!
Dante Stallworth killed someone while drunk and got 30 days.
Reason 786 Sullivan and Cromwell or any biglaw attys shouldn't do criminal defense work...
At least he won't be around to sue for malpractice. My kind of client.
Sullivan & Cromwell: You Get What You Pay For
Let's suppose the S&C mail room gets a letter addressed to J. Associate.
The letter is not addressed to "Sullivan & Cromwell" because S&C (the firm, mind you, as opposed to the individual lawyers) never entered an appearance in the matter.
Any thoughts on whether opening this associate's mail might be illegal tampering with the mails?
Numerous commentors have suggested that this case demonstrates why "Sullivan and Cromwell or any biglaw attys shouldn't do criminal defense work." I agree that paper-pushing litigators who have little or no trial experience are accidents waiting to happen when they attempt to try criminal cases. However, this is an appellate case, not a criminal trial, and any attorney capable of competently handling a civil appeal ought to be able to do the same with a criminal appeal -- its just brief writing and argument, not presenting evidence to a jury. S&C has plenty of attorneys who clerked for appellate courts and should be able to handle a matter like this without incident. S&C management fell asleep at the swich and failed to monitor the pro bono acitivities of its associates and now (I hope) will pay dearly for its malpractice.
So two juniors were sitting around with no billable work to save the day/month/year. They take a death row pro bono case to kill time and at least get some "chargeables." This of course doesn't help them because S&C couldn't care less unless you make them some $$$. The juniors still get stealthly laid off. The case gets transfered to some other juniors that are left behind but no "real" work to do. They of course have no idea how to practice because they're juniors. Their supervising partner has better things to do than supervise, like hunting for clients who pay. Nobody notifies the court about the change of counsel. Then the market picks up. Juniors are immediately moved to billable work. By the time the court notice arrives, the case is long forgotten. Notice gets automatically send back because "this person is no loger with the firm" ... so typical for S&C and happens all the time. High time their TTT standards got relvealed. Pro bono work in biglaw = big joke.
I apologize for the Florida reference.
70
BTW, does anyone happen to know how the two attorneys that were handling this case feel?
I agree with 121. My current firm does not do death penalty work because of all the responsibilities that go with it . If you want to take that work on, you better have a great system in place to ensure you are not leaving anything to chance. At my prior firm, these systems were in place, including docketing and mail handling procedures to track dates, a service to routinely check dockets to make sure you did not miss anything, etc. Can anyone comment on what S&C put in place to manage these types of matters.
Alabama is the only state that provides no post-conviction representation to inmates sentenced to be executed and also has by far the most inmates on death row, when the numbers are adjusted for relative population. Sullivan & Cromwell was probably one of the many firms recruited by the ABA to provide representation to an Alabama death row inmate. In the last statistics I saw (as my firm was being recruited by the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court to take on Pro Bono yet another death row inmate in his post-conviction appeals) was that 25% of the death row inmates in Alabama had no representation.
Representing death row inmates is hard, thankless work that a lawyer does without pay and usually instead of paying work. One can argue that the inmate deserves his sentence, but for the system to work and provide some semblance of due process, a lawyer is necessary. And the work not only usually decreases the income of the lawyers handling it, it also is much more difficult -- intellectually, emotionally and professionally -- than any other work a lawyer can handle.
The Sullivan & Cromwell lawyers should not have made a mistake, but let anyone who has practiced for decades and never made a mistake throw the first stone -- otherwise, Sullivan & Cromwell deserves the thanks of the bar for undertaking representation that needs to be done in a place where the elected judges are hostile and the prospects of a favorable result, regardless of the facts, are at best slim.
Proving malpractice requires a showing that a different result was likely but for the mistake. In Alabama, the standard practice is for the Attorney General's office to provide to the judge an opinion that overrules the Rule 32 petition on every conceivable ground and for the judge just to sign it. Such one-sided rulings are not only tolerated by the Alabama appellate courts, but routinely affirmed without opinion.
Off with his head!
Is it just me or there something incredibly fucked up about judges who spend 30 pages refusing to consider a claim because somebody in a NY mail room sent an envelope back "return to sender" without opening it? Explain to me how the judges are any better than Corey Maples when it comes to callousness. And what's up with Alabama that they are too cheap to pay for competent local folks to handle life and death Rule 32 motions instead of leaving it up to out-of-state volunteer lawyers. They should be ashamed. 100 years from now when people look back on us they are going to say what the hell was wrong with those barbarians?
Uh, Mr. Maples, is this a bad time to ask for a letter of recommendation?
-S&C Pro Bono Associate