Abstract:
In late 2023, news stories picked up stories about a lawsuit alleging that Bankruptcy Judge David Jones of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas had been hearing cases in which his live-in romantic partner was appearing as counsel. The Fifth Circuit began disciplinary proceedings, and Judge Jones resigned from the bench. The scandal has affected more than just these two people: it implicates law firms, and potentially implicates other lawyers or judges who might have known more than they were saying. This article explores who had a duty to disclose this particular “connection,” and under what authority.
Commentary:
While this paper on the ethical obligations of the parties involved exclusively in Chapter 11 cases, unnoticed and perhaps more interesting to the consumer bankruptcy attorney is that Judge Jones said:
that he would have had a recusal obligation for cases involving Freeman’s firm only if they had been married and had communal property. Judge Jones owns the home in Houston which he and Freeman reside in, and pays utilities and other expenses on the home.
Had either he or Ms. Freeman filed their own consumer bankruptcy it seems almost certain that any bankruptcy judge would have concluded this was a single "economic unit" and imputed at least some portion of all parties' incomes towards the amount required to be paid to creditors. 11 U.S.C § 101 (10A)(B)(i). That such a basic (albeit often flawed) understanding and imposition in consumer cases did not inform the judge's own reflections regarding appropriate behavior add to the disappointment about the choices made here, especially as consumers in cases where they geese served in a sauce not good enough for the judicial gander seems unnoticed at all levels and unlikely to see any review or remedy.
To read a copy of the transcript, please see:
Blog comments