David Jones, the former bankruptcy judge in Houston who resigned his bench after his secret romantic relationship with a bankruptcy lawyer was publicly reported, has asked a federal judge to dismiss him from a racketeering lawsuit brought by a group of GWG bondholders, arguing he “is entitled to judicial or quasi-judicial immunity” from the claims.
Individual defendants in the lawsuit that was filed in June include Jones, who resigned the bench in October 2023, and Elizabeth Freeman, the former Jackson Walker bankruptcy partner with whom he shared a relationship and a home. Law firms named as defendants include Jackson Walker, Porter Hedges and Freeman’s new law firm.
The bondholders allege that Porter Hedges — where Jones and Freeman practiced before Jones was named to the bench and Freeman became his law clerk — also knew about the relationship because Freeman’s ex-husband, a partner at the firm, was aware of it, and his “knowledge of the continuing relationship is imputed to Porter Hedges.” Porter Hedges also served as counsel to the bondholders committee.
Jackson Walker has become the target of actions by the U.S. trustee to claw back millions in fees awarded to the firm in 33 bankruptcy proceedings where Jones served as judge or mediator.
GWG, a Dallas-based financial services firm that sells bonds backed by life insurance policies, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in April 2022. Judge Marvin Isgur was assigned to the case and Jones was appointed to serve as mediator.
Jones argued in the 28-page motion to dismiss filed Monday that in his role as mediator in the GWG bankruptcy case he “awarded no fees, entered no orders in the cases and played no role in the confirmation of GWG’s consensual plan that was affirmatively approved by over 99 percent of GWG’s bondholders.”
“There can be no genuine dispute that Jones is entitled to absolute immunity from civil lawsuits arising from his role as a judicial mediator in the GWG bankruptcy cases under applicable law,” the motion reads. “Likewise, Judge Isgur’s final and non-appealable order makes it clear that Jones is entitled to all privileges and immunities as a judicial mediator enjoyed by a sitting bankruptcy judge. This case should be immediately dismissed with prejudice.”
The bankruptcy proceedings in the GWG case were “contentious from the beginning,” according to the motion, and after “multiple days of mediation,” Jones assisted the parties in resolving numerous issues. But the motion maintains he “did not select any person for any role under the proposed second amended plan” and that all decisions were made by creditor groups involved in the mediation.
Regardless of that, and even if he had been the presiding judge in the GWG bankruptcy rather than the mediator, Jones argues that these claims against him “are barred by clear, longstanding, and binding precedent on absolute judicial and quasi-judicial immunity.”
Additionally, the local rules “effectively bar private suits against court-appointed arbitrators and mediators,” the motion argues.
“Plaintiffs’ bare allegations that Jones (along with certain unidentified others) conspired to rig case assignments or mediator appointments in multiple cases does not overcome his immunity from this suit — because all of plaintiffs’ harms were actualized by judicial acts, just as in Holloway,” the motion argues, referencing the Fifth Circuit’s 1986 opinion in Holloway v. Walker.
As an alternative argument, Jones told the court the plaintiffs here don’t have standing to pursue their claims, which are “not materially different” from what plaintiffs in two other related lawsuits — Michael D. Van Deelan v. David R. Jones, et al, and Morton S. Bouchard, III, et al v. David R. Jones, et al — have alleged.
The Van Deelan lawsuit first made public allegations about the romance scandal in October 2023 and was dismissed by Chief U.S. District Judge Alia Moses in August 2024. The Bouchard lawsuit was filed in February 2024 by a bankruptcy petitioner who alleged he was wronged as a result of the secret relationship.
In her own motion to dismiss filed last month, Freeman made a similar argument, telling the court the claims here are “nearly identical” to those other two lawsuits.
The same law firm that brought the Van Deelan case, she wrote, is bringing this one, and the court has previously warned The Bandas Law Firm about “the limits of Article III standing,” the motion argues.
“And yet here we are again,” Freeman argued. “The Bandas Law Firm has now filed another complaint that flies in the face of Article III standing. The Bandas Law Firm is attempting to pull one over on this court by raising the same arguments that this court has already rejected in a well-reasoned 38-page opinion.”
On Monday, Judge Moses entered an order rejecting Freeman’s motion to dismiss and a motion to dismiss filed by Jackson Walker.
“Upon careful review of the motions, the court rejects the motions and orders the defendants to refile their motions to dismiss by September 25, 2025, in compliance with this Court’s recent order restricting filings to 50 pages of briefing — maximum — and 25 pages of exhibits — maximum,” the chief judge wrote.
“The court adds that motions to dismiss along with their exhibits spanning thousands of pages do not persuade or impress the Court. Gamesmanship and attempts to overwhelm the court with a deluge of briefing will not be viewed in a positive light.”
In August, Freeman had filed a 54-page motion to dismiss accompanied by more than 1,000 pages of exhibits. Jackson Walker’s motion to dismiss was 71-pages long and accompanied by more than 1,400 pages of exhibits.
Jones is represented by David Boies and Tyler Ulrich of Boies Schiller Flexner.
Freeman is represented by Matthew Probus of The Probus Law Firm.
Jackson Walker is represented by Rusty Hardin and Emily Smith of Rusty Hardin & Associates.
Counsel for Porter Hedges had not filed appearances as of Wednesday morning.
The plaintiffs are represented by Mikell Alan West of Bandas Law Firm in Corpus Christi.
The case number is 4:25-cv-02761.