Ex-bankruptcy judge David Jones defeats bid for his phone records in tangled fee dispute
By Dietrich Knauth
Aug 7 (Reuters) -Former U.S. bankruptcy judge David Jones will not have his government cell phone records probed in a battle over attorneys' fees that he approved for his romantic partner's former law firm, a judge ruled Wednesday.
Jones resigned from the bench in October 2023 after admitting to a long-term, undisclosed relationship with bankruptcy attorney Liz Freeman, who was a partner at the law firm Jackson Walker, which regularly filed cases in Jones' court.
The U.S. Department of Justice's bankruptcy watchdog, the office of the U.S. Trustee, has argued that Jackson Walker should disgorge millions of dollars in legal fees that Jones approved in 33 bankruptcy cases filed by Jackson Walker.
As part of the fee dispute, an administrator charged with wrapping up J.C. Penney Co's 2020 bankruptcy had sought to subpoena a comprehensive record of calls and texts from Jones' government-issued cell phone, seeking to investigate a "rumor" that Jones improperly exchanged text messages with lawyers while he was presiding over the case.
But U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Eduardo Rodriguez ruled at a Wednesday court hearing in Houston that the proposed subpoena was not properly targeted to the current fee dispute or the administrator's concern that Jones' conduct had a negative impact on J.C. Penney's bankruptcy.
"This is too broad of a request," Rodriguez said.
The subpoena could reveal every phone number that Jones had contact with while he was on the bench, including the non-public phone numbers of other judges or court staff, Rodriguez said.
Attorneys for Jones and a spokesman for Jackson did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Rodriguez said that the J.C. Penney administrator could return with a scaled-down demand for records related to specific phone numbers, after it investigates the rumor further from other sources.
Rodriguez also discussed a recent meeting between Jones and Jackson Walker, for which Rodriguez had threatened sanctions.
That portion of the hearing was not made public due to Rodriguez's concern about a judicial policy that prevents judges from testifying about their official acts.
Rodriguez said in a Saturday court order that Jones and Jackson Walker may have violated that policy, and his previous court orders, by meeting informally while Rodriguez was still deciding what topics Jones could discuss in depositions with Jackson Walker and the U.S. Trustee.
Rodriguez said he will quickly review Wednesday's discussion to determine what portions of the hearing can be publicly disclosed by transcript or audio recording.
"I'm pretty confident most of it should be unsealed," Rodrigez said after the closed portion of the hearing concluded.
The case is In Re: Professional Fee Matters Concerning the Jackson Walker Law Firm, U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas, No. 23-00645.
For Jones: Ben Finestone and Joanna Caytas of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan
For Jackson Walker: Jason Boland of Norton Rose Fulbright
For the J.C. Penney plan administrator: Stephen Lemmon of Streusand, Landon, Ozburn & Lemmon
Read more:
Top US bankruptcy judge resigns amid ethics inquiry
Law firm says Texas judge wanted 'untruthful' statement about lawyer romance
Ex-bankruptcy judge plays defense on pre-deposition talks, phone records
Reporting by Dietrich Knauth in New York
Related Assets
Latest News
Disclaimer: The XM Group entities provide execution-only service and access to our Online Trading Facility, permitting a person to view and/or use the content available on or via the website, is not intended to change or expand on this, nor does it change or expand on this. Such access and use are always subject to: (i) Terms and Conditions; (ii) Risk Warnings; and (iii) Full Disclaimer. Such content is therefore provided as no more than general information. Particularly, please be aware that the contents of our Online Trading Facility are neither a solicitation, nor an offer to enter any transactions on the financial markets. Trading on any financial market involves a significant level of risk to your capital.
All material published on our Online Trading Facility is intended for educational/informational purposes only, and does not contain – nor should it be considered as containing – financial, investment tax or trading advice and recommendations; or a record of our trading prices; or an offer of, or solicitation for, a transaction in any financial instruments; or unsolicited financial promotions to you.
Any third-party content, as well as content prepared by XM, such as: opinions, news, research, analyses, prices and other information or links to third-party sites contained on this website are provided on an “as-is” basis, as general market commentary, and do not constitute investment advice. To the extent that any content is construed as investment research, you must note and accept that the content was not intended to and has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such, it would be considered as marketing communication under the relevant laws and regulations. Please ensure that you have read and understood our Notification on Non-Independent Investment. Research and Risk Warning concerning the foregoing information, which can be accessed here.
