[UPDATE: As you will see in the comments, my original post has been commented on by the lawyer for Mr. Munanka. It's entirely plausible to me that the original post cites to authorities that do not accurately describe the conduct of the lawyers that was criticized in the appellate opinions.]
A legal ethics prof passed this along.
Below is a letter from the lawyer for Jaasi Munanka, one of the young lawyers discussed in the Maples v. Thomas case, to the legal ethics professors and practitioners who signed an amicus brief that was quite critical of Mr. Munanka. (Maples v. Thomas was the case where a death row inmate's lawyers missed an important deadline and were considered to have abandoned the client.)
The lawyer notes that the state bar declined to proceed against Mr. Munanka, stating that there was no basis for disciplinary charges. The letter asserts that the real story of what happened is quite different than the facts presented in the appellate record. (That's plausible to me, but how can one verify it? If the appellate record materially distorted what the lawyers did, and who was responsible for the missed deadline, it would be difficult for the lawyers to live with that.)
The letter suggests that there may be a basis to unseal the records of the disciplinary investigation. I suppose that those records would make for a good law review article, because it would show how big firms handle important pro bono matters and could possibly show that the appellate record wasn't accurate.