Southern District of Texas Chief Bankruptcy Judge Eduardo Rodriguez on Friday ordered his former colleague, David Jones, to take 7.5 hours of ethics training after finding the former jurist acted in bad faith when he consented to an interview with Jackson Walker lawyers.
In the 18-page order, Judge Rodriguez “narrowly” found that Jackson Walker, Jason L. Boland of Norton Rose Fulbright, who, alongside Rusty Hardin and his law firm Rusty Hardin & Associates, represents Jackson Walker, and Benjamin Finestone of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, who represents Jones, did not act in bad faith by participating in the interview.
The order also determined no party would be held in contempt of court for the interview.
Chief Judge Rodriguez conducted a two-hour, sealed show cause hearing on Aug. 7 after the U.S. Trustee’s Office on Aug. 2 informed him that the parties had apparently gone behind his back and violated a prior order by conducting a private interview with the former judge about his secret romantic relationship with former Jackson Walker partner Elizabeth Freeman.
“Notwithstanding the clear mandate that the Judiciary Regulations imposed on Mr. Jones, he unilaterally decided in flagrant contravention of his obligations to reach out to Jackson Walker in an attempt to persuade them to not follow through on taking his deposition,” Chief Judge Rodriguez wrote. “Mr. Jones did so without notifying any other party in interest or this Court that it was his intention to do so. Mr. Jones, frankly, knew better. Mr. Jones knew what his obligations were and devised a contrived reading of the Judiciary Regulations to try to justify his own personal goals in avoiding the need to provide sworn testimony in this proceeding.”
“Mr. Jones would rather ask for forgiveness than permission from this Court, something that this Court does not take well even on a normal day, much less in a proceeding as sensitive as this one.”
Chief Judge Rodriguez gave Jones until Sept. 16 to complete the ethics training.
The U.S. Trustee’s litigation seeking to disgorge Jackson Walker of legal fees it received in two dozen bankruptcy cases between 2019 and 2023 is just one of a handful of cases launched after it was disclosed in October 2023 that former Judge Jones, who was the busiest bankruptcy judge in the U.S. handling high-dollar, complex business bankruptcies, was involved in the romantic relationship with Freeman, who was a lawyer involved in nearly all of those matters.
Two federal racketeering lawsuits have also been filed and are pending. And Bloomberg Law has reported that the U.S. Justice Department is conducting a separate criminal inquiry into the matter.
Chief Judge Rodriguez has indicated, both after the show-cause hearing in open court and in documents filed as part of the record of this case, that he intends to make public a redacted copy of the transcript from the sealed show cause hearing as early as Aug. 19.
As for why the conduct of Jackson Walker, Bolan, Hardin and Finestone didn’t constitute bad faith, Chief Judge Rodriguez explained that “the Judiciary Regulations do not impose any direct requirement on the requester of information to affirmatively refrain from contacting or receiving information from the former judiciary employee, nor do they impose a requirement on the requestee’s counsel.”
“With this said, the Court simultaneously does not take well and strongly admonishes Jackson Walker, Mr. Boland, Mr. Hardin, and Mr. Finestone’s fast and loose approach to participating in an interview that touches upon the same topics and subject matter that this Court is currently has under advisement,” he wrote. “With the amount of legal talent involved in this case, and the sensitive nature of this proceeding, it is incredulous to this Court that well-seasoned attorneys would play with fire like this and proceed on such a legally dubious course of action. Notwithstanding decades of experience between these attorneys, they decided to play fast and loose with the Judiciary Regulations and this Court’s authority. This Court expects a more conservative and cautious approach from all attorneys involved and is deeply disappointed.”
The case number is 23-00645.