“Boies Backs Ex-Bankruptcy Judge ‘Immunity’ in Relationship Suit” —

• “Litigation surrounding a former Texas bankruptcy judge’s once-secret relationship with a local attorney should be dismissed, despite ‘appearance issues,’ top litigator David Boies said.”
• “Boies on Thursday filed papers asking a federal court to toss the case against his client, former judge David R. Jones, which was brought by the onetime CEO of a petroleum barge company that filed for bankruptcy before Jones four years ago.”
• “The motion to dismiss is the latest development in the scandal related to Jones and his longstanding romantic relationship with Elizabeth Freeman. She was Jones’ former clerk and a onetime bankruptcy partner at Jackson Walker, a law firm that regularly represented clients before him in court.”
• “Boies, 83, said in an interview with Bloomberg Law that judges are entitled to ‘absolute immunity’ for their decisions.”
  “‘It is designed to ensure judges know when they make a decision that that decision is not going to subject them to civil liability from an unhappy litigant,’ Boies said. ‘Or even the burden of having to defend themselves against an unhappy litigant.'”
• “Allegations of malice or corruption don’t render a judge’s actions an exception to judicial immunity, and Jones’ failure to disclose the relationship doesn’t make his actions in the Bouchard Transportation Co. Inc. bankruptcy non-judicial, Thursday’s motion said.”
• “‘are entitled immunity even when their violation of a recusal obligation was allegedly intentional or malicious,’ the motion said.”
• “The revelations involving Jones, once the busiest judge overseeing large corporate Chapter 11s in the country, have cast a shadow on the Houston bankruptcy court Jones built to prominence, and have prompted a Justice Department unit to try to recover millions of dollars from Jackson Walker, Freeman’s former firm.”

“Former Dolton lawyers sue competing attorney for defamation” —

• “After bowing out of representing the village of Dolton due to village trustees’ refusal to pay them, the Del Galdo law group is suing a lawyer representing those trustees for defamation.”
• “The Berwyn-based law firm claims Burt Odelson, of the Odelson, Murphey, Frazier and McGrath law group, made knowingly false statements about the Del Galdo group that led to the trustees turning against them as village attorneys.”
• “The opposing law firms both have extensive experience representing municipalities and government officials in the Chicago area. Michael Del Galdo, founding attorney of the Del Galdo firm, has long ties to the political operation Michael Madigan, the indicted former Illinois House speaker and Democratic Party chairman.”
• “According to the lawsuit, Odelson told attendees at a Feb. 22 Dolton Village Board meeting that Del Galdo had a conflict of interest in representing the village and had billed the village tens of thousands of dollars ‘in violation of Dolton’s corporate authorities.'”
• “Del Galdo said other statements he claims were defamatory include that they solely served as the village’s prosecutor, not village attorney, and that cases under Del Galdo’s representation had gone under default judgment.”

“Atty Agrees To Withdraw Mid-DQ Hearing In NC Biz Court” —

• “A real estate attorney on Wednesday [6/24] beat opposing counsel to the punch on a motion for disqualification in a dispute over a soured business partnership, opting instead to voluntarily withdraw his representation of one party but remain as counsel for another after a state Business Court judge pointed out conflicts with him providing services to both.”
• “The verbal agreement to withdraw by Jason Norman of Norman Legal PLLC came during a hearing in Mecklenburg County after North Carolina Business Court Judge Adam Conrad questioned whose approval Norman had sought in filing an answer on behalf of Golden Rooster LLC, a real estate investment company at the heart of the suit.”
• “Norman — who represents defendants Golden Rooster and member Khanh Ngoc ‘Katie’ Phan — conceded that he only consulted with Phan in seeking to file documents on behalf of the company, leaving the other member-owner, plaintiff Thao Phuong ‘Tiffani’ Bui, in the dark.”
• “Judge Conrad said one manager’s approval without the other is insufficient given that both Bui and Phan have equal voting rights when it comes to Golden Rooster — even if Bui and Phan are opposing parties in the suit.”
• “‘That seems like a problem to me — and that seems like a problem that would last throughout the course of this case,’ the judge said of Norman’s representation of both Golden Rooster and Phan.”
• “Norman subsequently agreed to pull his representation of Golden Rooster and remain as counsel for Phan, noting that Golden Rooster didn’t appear to be a necessary party.”
• “During Wednesday’s hearing, Bo Caudill of Villmer Caudill PLLC, who represents Bui, said his client never agreed to Norman representing Golden Rooster. If that weren’t enough, Norman’s representation of both the company and Phan was in clear violation of the rules of professional conduct, Caudill said.”
• “He argued that Bui, as a 50% owner, has a right to be informed about the status of the company’s representation, including directing strategy and making decisions about settlement offers. That inherently creates ‘difficult circumstances’ for Norman given that he is also representing Phan, Caudill told the court.”
• “In response, Norman claimed Bui did agree to his representation of Golden Rooster and only changed her mind when he advised that she wasn’t owed $68,000 as part of the buyout offer, at which point he said she “soured” on his services.”
• “‘The idea that she did not consent to hiring me as counsel for Golden Rooster belies the evidence,’ Norman said. ‘She directed it.'”
• “Judge Conrad then questioned whether Norman had circulated the answer he filed on Golden Rooster’s behalf to both Bui and Phan as equal partners in the business. Norman, however, said he did not send it to Bui because she was an ‘adversarial litigant.'”
• “According to Judge Conrad, therein lies the problem. ‘In the course of this dialogue, I think you can see there is a pretty substantial problem here with your continued representation of the company,’ he said.”
• “While Norman argued that his initial hiring was lawful, he conceded the judge’s point and said he didn’t ‘have a problem being removed from Golden Rooster’s representation.'”