Bankruptcy Court Likely to Pare Back Probe into Ex-Judge Romance

Questioning has been postponed of a former bankruptcy judge tied up in an ethics debacle over his once-secret relationship with a local attorney so a court can decide whether any of the queries violate judiciary policy.

The questioning is part of efforts by the US Trustee’s office, which serves as the Justice Department’s bankruptcy monitor, to claw back more than $13 million in fees that David R. Jones approved for Texas law firm Jackson Walker without disclosing that he was in a longstanding relationship with a partner at the firm. Chief Judge Eduardo V. Rodriguez of the Houston bankruptcy court heard arguments about the proposed deposition at a hearing in his courtroom Tuesday.

Rodriguez said he’s struggled over whether questions surrounding the former judge’s decision to not recuse himself from cases involving the attorney and Jackson Walker “crosses the line.” Judges shouldn’t have to explain their recusal decisions, he added.

Jones, who didn’t attend the hearing, resigned from the US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas last year after admitting to the relationship. His live-in girlfriend, Elizabeth Freeman left Jackson Walker in late 2022.

Jones previously agreed to questioning by Jackson Walker, which has said it needs answers to determine whether anyone at the firm was aware of the relationship. But the deposition, initially scheduled for July 18, was put on hold until Rodriguez decides which questions are appropriate.

Recusal Probe

Despite previously agreeing to questioning, Jones attorney Benjamin I. Finestone of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP tried to bat down potential queries related to the former judge’s relationship with Freeman. The questions would probe social events Jones attended, potential favoritism or bias he may have exhibited, conversations with attorneys, phone records, and mediation sessions Jones and Freeman attended together.

Finestone called the focus on Jones’ conduct a “strawman,” saying many of the questions were part of a fishing expedition about Jones even though the matter at hand is whether Jackson Walker was aware of the romance while it represented clients before him.

“It’s not what Judge Jones knew, it’s what Jackson Walker knew,” Finestone said.

Jackson Walker still doesn’t know the full nature of the relationship between Freeman and Jones, the firm’s attorney Jason Lee Boland of Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP told Rodriguez. Understanding the timeline more will help it defend itself against the US Trustee’s bid to disgorge fees it collected in cases before Jones, he said.

“This is an integral part of our case,” Boland said.

Over the course of roughly three hours, Rodriguez probed the parties over the relevance of their questions and whether they dealt with Jones’ official court duties, which may prevent them from being asked at all.

Rodriguez said inquiries about the nature and reasoning of Jones’ recusal—or lack thereof—is one of the toughest questions he must answer. The reasons behind judges’ recusals shouldn’t be public, he said.

“The decision to recuse should not be questioned or explored,” Rodriguez said.

US Trustee attorney Laura Steele argued that Jones opened the door to inquiries about his lack of recusals from his public statements, and that such questions are highly relevant to their motions.

Finestone said he believed an appeals court wouldn’t allow such testimony.

Rodriguez also said he worried about questions into how the judiciary makes its decisions.

“These are operations of the court,” Rodriguez said. “We have independence.”

While judicial rules limit some questions that can be asked to judges, Steele said those rules aren’t meant to act as a total shield to asking about any wrongdoing. The rules allow for “shedding light on fraud,” she said.

The case is Professional Fee Matters Concerning the Jackson Walker Law Firm, Bankr. S.D. Tex., No. 23-00645, 7/16/24.