The former McDermott International shareholder who exposed the secret relationship between a former Jackson Walker partner and the Houston bankruptcy judge who handled the McDermott restructuring is a “professional litigant” with a history of “perjured testimony and falsification of evidence” who has no legitimate legal claims against Jackson Walker, according to court documents filed Friday by lawyers representing the Dallas-based corporate law firm.
Prominent Houston trial lawyer Rusty Hardin, who represents Jackson Walker, filed a 46-page motion Friday seeking to dismiss the federal racketeering and fraud lawsuit filed against his client and others by McDermott investor Michael Van Deelen, who seeks millions of dollars in damages, alleging the firm hid and profited from the romantic relationship between Elizabeth Freeman, a Jackson Walker bankruptcy partner between 2018 and 2022, and former Bankruptcy Judge David Jones.
Hardin also filed “Exhibit Four” with the motion to dismiss, a five-page internal draft memo dated August 2021 titled “Privileged and Confidential — Judicial Qualification,” written by Jackson Walker partner Patrick Cowlishaw, who served as the firm’s general counsel at the time. The memo was addressed to Holland & Knight partner Peter Jarvis, who is an expert in lawyer professionalism and ethics.
“Elizabeth has confirmed that there is no current romantic relationship between herself and Judge Jones and that none is expected going forward,” Cowlishaw wrote to Jarvis. “According to Elizabeth, there has been no romantic relationship since prior to the time in March 2020 when COVID caused so many of us to shift to remote work and virtual-only meetings. Judge Jones and Elizabeth each own their own homes; they do not and have not lived together.”
Judge David Jones
“The firm, for its part, had concluded and has advised Elizabeth that any romantic, intimate, or sexual relationship between a firm lawyer and a federal judge would create too much risk of disqualification to be compatible with any lawyer in the firm continuing to appear before that judge,” he wrote to Jarvis. “There is direct authority that a lawyer appearing before a judge with whom he or she is in a romantic relationship is cause for immediate disqualification of the judge.”
The draft memo by Cowlishaw states that Jackson Walker partner Matt Cavenaugh received an email from Van Deelen March 6, 2021, stating that he received an anonymous letter about the secret relationship between Judge Jones and Freeman, who had clerked for the judge for six years prior to joining Jackson Walker as an income partner in 2018. Van Deelen sent Cavenaugh a copy of the unsigned letter.
“Van Deelen questioned whether Judge Jones was favoring Jackson Walker and its clients because of his relationship with our partner,” Cowlishaw wrote.
Cavenaugh contacted Cowlishaw and Jackson Walker managing partner Wade Cooper. The memo states that firm leaders “reached out to Elizabeth, who confirmed that there had been a romantic relationship. No further details were sought at that time. At the firm’s request, Elizabeth stopped work on all matters in Judge Jones’ court, pending the firm’s assessment of the matter.”
The memo states that Jackson Walker provided copies of the anonymous letter to Judge Jones and Kirkland & Ellis, who was lead counsel for McDermott in the bankruptcy. Judge Jones, Freeman and Kirkland are also co-defendants in the federal lawsuit brought by Van Deelen.
Elizabeth Freeman
With the memo, Hardin also filed an email exchange between Cowlishaw and Freeman dated Aug. 26, 2021. Cowlishaw shares the draft memo he planned to send to Jarvis, which he said had been reviewed by Cooper and bankruptcy partners Cavenaugh and Bruce Ruzinsky.
“I will appreciate your review. I want to be sure that the statements of fact are accurate and that the terms described in the letter that will apply to you are consistent with what you have understood and can go along with,” Cowlishaw wrote to Freeman. “Once we have your concurrence, I will sent the letter to Peter in draft form, to be sure it provides the information he needs, after which I will send in final form and look for his opinion. Please let me know if you have questions. I can say for Wade and me that we know that this has been an extraordinarily difficult matter to ask you to address, that we deeply appreciate your candor, cooperation and your commitment to the firm, and that we look forward very soon to closing the book on this.”
The next day, Freeman responded.
“Pat, I reviewed the letter and have no questions or issues. I deeply appreciate the time and effort everyone has put into this very difficult situation. I lament that it was necessary. Thank you for everything. ‐ Liz”
Freeman and Judge Jones have since admitted that they continued their relationship, and Jackson Walker has argued that Freeman lied to its partners about the relationship.
Van Deelen, who has an MBA from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, owned 30,000 shares of McDermott stock that were wiped away as part of the bankruptcy restructuring approved by Judge Jones.
In statements to The Texas Lawbook, Jackson Walker officials have contended that it hired an outside legal ethics expert to advise the firm regarding Freeman’s relationship with Judge Jones and that the legal expert has said the firm acted properly.
However, Jackson Walker has yet to make any documents or statements provided by the expert public.
In the 2021 memo to Jarvis, Cowlishaw stated that the firm would “require Elizabeth to refrain from working on matters in Judge Jones’ court through March 2022.”
“We understand that a close personal relationship remains” between Judge Jones and Freeman, Cowlishaw wrote.
“We expect that Elizabeth and Judge Jones may see one another socially as friends with some frequency. They enjoy shared interests,” the memo states. “Elizabeth assures us that at all times since she left her clerkship and joined Jackson Walker, she and Judge Jones have avoided any discussion of active cases and will continue to do so.”
“After careful consideration of all of these matters, the firm’s management committee concluded that it would be prudent to maintain separation between Elizabeth and our firm’s representation of clients in matters before Judge Jones for some reasonable time following the conclusion of any romantic relationship, and to adjust her compensation during that time so that she does not receive any portion of the profits that may be earned by the firm attributable to cases before him,” Cowlishaw wrote to Jarvis. “The objective of these actions is to place any alleged appearance of impropriety well into the past.”
The case is Michael Van Deelen v. David R. Jones, SDTX, No. 4:23-cv-3729.