Maples v. Thomas Amicus Brief

10 attached any ethical significance to this unusual assertion. From a professional responsibility point of view it was not only irrelevant, it contradicted the requirements of the rules that required Sullivan & Cromwell to provide supervision and take responsibility over inexperienced lawyers. Ala. R. Prof’l Conduct R. 5.1(a) (2002) (“A partner in a law firm shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the firm has in effect measures giving reasonable assurance that all lawyers in the firm conform to the Rules of Professional Conduct.”); see also RLGL § 31 cmt. f (2000) (“When a client retains a lawyer who practices with a firm, the presumption is that both the lawyer and the firm have been retained (see § 14, cmt. h). Hence, when a lawyer involved in a representation leaves the firm, the client can ordinarily choose whether to be represented by that lawyer, by lawyers remaining at the firm, by neither, or by both. . . . When a lawyer leaves a large firm, for example, it can usually be assumed that, absent contrary client instructions or previous contract, the firm continues to represent the client in pending representations and the lawyer does not.”).

It also contradicted Sullivan & Cromwell’s own identification of pro bono cases in a pro bono questionnaire. Asked to “list up to three pro bono matters that are representative of the pro bono work your firm participates in,” (emphasis supplied) Sullivan & Cromwell, the law firm, answered listing numerous pro bono matters including three capital cases, one in Alabama, presumably the Maples case.

Vault Guide to Law Firm Pro Bono Programs 674 (3d ed. 2007).