Jackson Walker Rejected PR Firm’s Advice on ‘Highest Standards’

Jackson Walker LLP pushed back on a crisis public relations firm’s advice to tout its ethical standards following allegations that one of its lawyers was in a secret relationship with a top bankruptcy judge, according to an updated complaint.

The previously undisclosed communications between the Texas law firm and Androvett Legal Media & Marketing were made public in an amended complaint Thursday by the plan administrator for JCPenney’s 2020 bankruptcy. The complaint, filed in the US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas, accuses Jackson Walker of a deliberate cover-up of the romance between its onetime partner, Elizabeth Freeman, and ex-bankruptcy judge David R. Jones, who oversaw many of the firm’s bankruptcy cases.

The Androvett communications show Jackson Walker resisted suggestions that it publicly affirm adherence to the “highest” ethical standards and that it sought to support Freeman against March 2021 allegations that she was in a live-in relationship with Jones.

“I would avoid holding us to higher than applicable standards and requirements (i.e., no ‘highest standards’),” Jackson Walker’s then-general counsel Patrick Cowlishaw told Androvett at the time. “Maybe something along the lines of ‘For more than 100 years, Jackson Walker has served its clients with skill, commitment, and in compliance with ethical and professional requirements.’”

The relationship was eventually revealed publicly in October 2023, prompting Jones’ resignation and sparking civil litigation and a criminal investigation. Jackson Walker is battling litigation from the government’s bankruptcy watchdog, the US Trustee, over millions in fees it earned in cases involving Jones.

The JCPenney administrator’s complaint alleges the firm disregarded its duties to clients and courts, and ignored ethical advice after it learned of the relationship allegations.

The plan administrator wants to claw back at least $2.6 million in fees the firm collected as local counsel for JCPenney in its Chapter 11 case, which Jones oversaw.

The amended complaint, citing texts and other communications revealed through discovery, challenges Jackson Walker’s defense that it “it cannot be held responsible for the poor judgment of lower-level partners and associates who knew of the Relationship and failed to disclose.” Several firm attorneys knew about the romance before the March 2021 allegations and the firm’s upper management was involved in the cover-up the following year, JCPenney’s plan administrator alleged.

Jackson Walker has moved to dismiss the suit, saying its actions had no impact on the JCPenney estate and that the issues are already being litigated by the US Trustee. Jackson Walker didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment Thursday but has previously denied wrongdoing.

‘Mid-Level Standards’

Cowlishaw’s objections came in the days following the initial allegations that Freeman was romantically involved with Jones, which arrived on March 6, 2021, from Michael Van Deelen, a shareholder of then-bankrupt engineering firm McDermott International.

Facing a March 10 court hearing on Van Deelen’s motion for Jones to recuse himself from the McDermott case, the firm moved quickly.

By March 8, Jackson Walker marketing director Barbara Malin emailed Androvett’s Mark Annick seeking advice, according to the complaint. The firm needed talking points and statements for two scenarios: whether a relationship was found to exist or not.

Annick prepared a draft statement by the next day saying Jackson Walker and its lawyers adhered to “the highest standards of ethics and professionalism” and noted an internal investigation was underway. It added that the firm would take necessary steps to maintain those standards as facts emerged.

But Cowlishaw balked at language about “highest standards” and an “internal probe,” according to the complaint. He also wanted to support Freeman, suggesting Jackson Walker say it knew her to be “an extraordinary lawyer and a person of integrity” without commenting on the propriety of her conduct.

Malin, however, had concerns about supporting Freeman, saying it “might be a strategic mistake.” But she also worried the firm may be “perceived as throwing Liz to the sharks at the first opportunity.”

Cowlishaw also wanted to avoid the word “investigation,” instead framing it as a review to ensure court filings complied with legal and ethical standards, according to the complaint.

Annick warned Jackson Walker that if it couldn’t “affirm a commitment to the highest ethical standards, an outside observer or reader may wonder what sort of mid-level standards we do follow.”

“We also feel an obligation—as your advocates in the PR and media space—to say that reporters and others encountering this are bound to see it as a clear conflict of interest, at the very least,” Annick said.

Cowlishaw acknowledged Androvett’s advice, but said its “judgment, for better or worse, is that we need to stay away from that or like phrases.”

Malin was prepared to address the relationship, and for Jones to publicly acknowledge it himself, after the March 10 hearing, according to the complaint.

Instead, Jones referred the recusal motion to Judge Marvin Isgur, his mentor and fellow Houston bankruptcy judge. Isgur sealed the letter from Van Deelen alleging the relationship and, on March 10, denied Van Deelen’s request to take depositions to verify it.

With the letter’s allegations defused, Annick told Jackson Walker it had “a little bit of cover and time,” according to the filing. Two days later, the law firm refused to provide Annick a copy of the letter, and their substantive communication ended, the complaint says. The allegations would remain sealed for years.

The former JCPenney company, now called Old Copper Co. Inc., is represented by Streusand Landon Ozburn & Lemmon LLP. Jackson Walker is represented by Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP and Rusty Hardin & Associates LLP.

The case is Old Copper Company Inc. f/k/a JC Penney Company Inc. v. Jackson Walker L.L.P., Bankr. S.D. Tex., No. 25-02002, Amended Complaint 5/1/25.