“Jackson Walker Rejected Judge Romance Ethics Advice, Report Says” —
- “Jackson Walker LLP rebuffed advice from its own outside ethics expert to disclose a relationship between a partner and a bankruptcy judge, instead opting for a confidentiality agreement barring discussions of the romance, according to a government-commissioned report.”
- “The Texas law firm failed to uphold disclosure obligations under bankruptcy law, an expert report filed in Thursday [1/30] in the US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas found. The firm exhibited a ‘persistent pattern of ignoring, obfuscating and concealing’ a relationship between its former partner, Elizabeth Freeman, and former Houston bankruptcy Judge David R. Jones, according to the report.”
- “‘Unfortunately, at every important moment in this matter, JW chose not to disclose but instead to conceal what it knew or had good reason to know about the Relationship,’ wrote the report’s author, Temple University law professor Jonathan Lipson.”
- “Jackson Walker and the Justice Department’s bankruptcy watchdog, the US Trustee, each moved to strike the other’s expert reports from being used in litigation. The reports were filed in a lawsuit where the US Trustee’s office has said Jackson Walker breached its ethical duties, a charge the firm rejects.”
- “The firm regularly represented clients in cases Jones oversaw. A trial set for April will decide whether as much as $23 million in fees awarded to Jackson Walker should be vacated and whether the firm can be sanctioned.”
- “Jones resigned soon after the relationship became public in late 2023 but litigation over the scandal remains pending. Freeman left Jackson Walker in December 2022.”
- “Once the firm learned of an ongoing relationship between Jones and Freeman, by at least February 2022, it had a duty to amend its bankruptcy disclosures in cases where it implied or said there were no such connections, Lipson concluded.”
- “Instead of disclosing or withdrawing from cases, Jackson Walker ‘decided to further bury evidence’ of the relationship through a confidential withdrawal agreement between the firm and Freeman in November 2022, Lipson said.”
- “Jones’ own ‘erroneous interpretation of his ethical obligations,’ is separate from Jackson Walker’s duty to investigate allegations of an ethical conflict, disclose connections, or withdraw from those cases, Lipson said.”
Conflicts and Confidentiality” - “Lipson cited expert opinions Jackson Walker received from Holland & Knight LLP attorneys in 2021 who were tapped by the Texas firm to provide ethics opinions about the relationship.”
- “The Holland & Knight team advised Jackson Walker in June 2022 that the conflict should be reported or it should withdraw from cases before Jones, Lipson’s report said. Jackson Walker did neither, he said.”
- “The firm didn’t tell its co-counsel, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, and didn’t ask if clients consented either, he said. No amendments were made to the firm’s bankruptcy disclosures, Lipson said.”
- “Lipson also said said Freeman’s connections can be imputed to Jackson Walker under Texas rules.”
“No DQ For Norton Rose In Texas Competition Row, Court Says” —
- “Norton Rose Fulbright shouldn’t be disqualified in a competitive spat between two industrial maintenance companies even though the firm has represented both entities in recent years, a state appeals court has ruled.”
- “Industrial maintenance provider Brown & Root Industrial Services LLC made only ‘conclusory statements of similarities’ about the firm’s current representation of its competitor, CAM Industrial Solutions LLC, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals wrote in a brief opinion Tuesday.”
- “Without more specific facts, the court said it can’t rule that Norton Rose Fulbright’s prior representation of Brown & Root violates the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 1.09, which bars an attorney ‘who personally has formerly represented a client in a matter’ from representing ‘another person in a matter adverse to the former client … if it is the same or a substantially related matter.'”
- “CAM retained Norton Rose Fulbright in the Chambers County suit, an action Brown & Root alleged presented a conflict of interest because the firm represented Brown & Root for eight years beginning in 2016.”
- “‘[Norton Rose’s] representation of Brown & Root included business advice and consulting, including on issues specifically related to Brown & Root’s industrial maintenance business line,’ Brown & Root wrote in its August 2024 petition to the Fourteenth Court of Appeals.”
- “‘In the context of that attorney-client relationship, Brown and Root shared internal business information with NRF, such as client information, contractual information, and personal employee information specifically related to Brown & Root’s industrial maintenance business.'”
- “Brown & Root wrote that the firm was continuing to bill it as recently as August 2023. It moved to disqualify CAM’s attorneys in May 2024, which the trial court denied three months later.”
- “The Fourteenth Court of Appeals on Tuesday outlined Brown & Root’s allegations, which included that the company consulted with two Norton Rose partners about corporate labor and employment law in relation to a specific bid the company was seeking. As part of that consultation, the firm helped Brown & Root set up a Canadian business entity, according to the company.”
- “The court wrote that those facts are not specific enough to determine that Norton Rose lawyers ‘could have acquired confidential information concerning a prior client that could be used either to that prior client’s disadvantage or for the advantage of the lawyer’s current client or some other person,’ as the disciplinary rule dictates.”
“Judge blocks key provisions of Trump’s bid to punish Democratic-linked law firm” —
- “President Donald Trump’s retaliation against a prominent Democratic-linked law firm is likely unconstitutional, a federal judge ruled Wednesday.”
- “U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell blocked the Trump administration from enforcing central provisions of an executive order that seeks to punish the law firm, Perkins Coie, by barring its attorneys from interacting with federal agencies or even entering federal buildings.”
- “Howell said the ‘retaliatory animus’ of Trump’s order is ‘clear on its face’ and appears to violate constitutional restrictions on ‘viewpoint discrimination.’ The executive order, which Trump issued last week, ‘runs head on into the wall of First Amendment protections,’ the judge concluded.”
- “Howell noted that the order would harm not only the firm’s 1,200 lawyers — most of whom had nothing to do with the Russia probe — but its 2,500 non-lawyer employees, from IT staff to secretaries.”
- “The judge said Trump’s order was also flawed because it was issued without any notice to the firm or due process to challenge his determination.”
- “‘This may be amusing in ‘Alice in Wonderland’ where the Queen of Hearts yells, ‘Off with their heads!’ at annoying subjects … and announces a sentence before a verdict,’ Howell said, ‘but this cannot be the reality we are living under.'”