Mailroom of Death Screw-Up Associate Makes Partner

Lawfuel.com – News of a mailroom screwup at Sullivan & Cromwell, which lead to an Alabama death row inmate missing an appeal deadline, has made big news. At least for the legal media and for Big Law. The Supreme Court, fortunately for the death rower, Cory Maples, intervened and so he was able to continue with his appeal notwithstanding the so-called “mailroom of death”.

One of those responsible for the mailroom muck-up however, has turned the corner career-wise, achieving partner status at Baker & McKenzie. A former associate at Sullivan & Cromwell, Clara Ingen-Housz is partner and her former associate colleague at SullCrom, Jaasi Munanka, is now a partner at Hogan Lovells in Denver.

The Supreme Court in its appeal noted in her majority decision: “[w]hen the associates left Sullivan & Cromwell, they never notified Maples and didn’t seek leave to withdraw.”

The Global Competition Review reported that Clar Ingen-Housz has been promoted as an antitrust specialist[] Clara Ingen-Housz . . . to partner in its Hong Kong . . . office[].

“Ingen-Housz, 37, previously worked at Sullivan & Cromwell and Simpson Thacher & Bartlett in New York before joining Baker & McKenzie in Asia. Earlier in her career she was a member of the competition team at the European Commission’s legal service in Brussels.”

“I am personally very happy to have been promoted,” says Ingen-Housz.

Blog AbovetheLaw were less than complimentary, commenting on the promotion:

“Of course Ingen-Housz is “very happy” about her promotion — not only will she now be able to roll around in a pile of money like Demi Moore in Indecent Proposal, but she’ll also get a go at putting her past behind her. After all, every accolade Ingen-Housz accumulates is just another chance for her to wipe her résumé and digital footprint clean of the SullCrom screw-up that could have cost a man his life.

Here’s something to ponder while you take a look at Ingen-Housz’s Baker & McKenzie bio on the next page: as a tipster so eloquently noted, “Wonder what SCOTUS would think of Baker’s standards for promotion?”

Scroll to Top