Developments in the bankruptcy case of the Archdiocese of New Orleans have taken a sudden, unexpected turn with the Abuse Survivors Committee’s formal objection to the most recent fee request of Jones Walker, the New Orleans law firm representing he archdiocese.
The objection appears to be hinting at a heretofore undisclosed conflict of interest of one or more Jones Walker attorneys and even throws out the word “disqualification” for Jones Walker’s failure to make proper disclosures of prohibited connections or “personal interest adverse to the estate (archdiocese).”
This new twist could conceivably throw a major obstacle into the path of ongoing settlement negotiations for more than 500 claimants of sexual abuse by priests.
The objection notes that the Bankruptcy Code requires that a professional – in this case, the Jones Walker law firm – retained by a debtor not “hold or represent an interest adverse to the estate” and that the professional be “disinterested.”
It also noted that the standards for determining a conflict are “strict” and that “attorneys engaged in the conduct of a bankruptcy case ‘should be free of the slightest personal interest which might be reflected in their decisions concerning matters of the debtor’s estate or which might impair the high degree of impartiality and detached judgment expect of them during the course of administration.’”
The committee’s objection points out that the Bankruptcy Code’s ethical standards mandate that “all known connections of the applicant with the debtor, creditor or any other party in interest” should be revealed to the court.
It further notes that disclosure requirements “are broader than the rules governing disqualifications, and an applicant (attorney or any employee of the law firm) must disclose all connections regardless of whether they are sufficient to rise to the level of a disqualifying interest…”
It says that courts may deny all compensation to professionals who fail to make adequate disclosure, and “counsel who fail to disclose timely and completely their connections proceed at their own risk because failure to disclose is sufficient grounds to revoke an employment order and deny compensation.”
While the committee’s objections were non-specific as to what conflict might exist, LouisianaVoice has written extensively about potential CONFLICTS, including the fact that current archdiocese general counsel Susan Zeringue is the wife of Jones Walker partner Wayne Zeringue.
The archdiocese has already paid out more than $41 million in professional fees, much of that to Jones Walker.
Louisiana Voice 
Tom I attach the actual document about which your 4-11 blog referred. Unless I am missing something thee is no new undisclosed “conflict” regarding Jones Walker. The language you quoted is boilerplate language used in most if not all objections and this objection goes on to zero in on billing entries that are woefully deficient-for instance “I spent .1 hours reading an e mail from client.” I agree with this part, like WTF does this lawyer mean?? Try being a bit more precise. This type of billing from a firm like Jones Walker, the silk stocking darling of this litigation reflects rather poorly on them. the fact that a partner and general counsel are married is not a conflict requiring disqualification of the law firm under the bankruptcy code’s definitions. The local bankruptcy bar is an incestuous group for sure, since it is a relatively small area of expertise and everyone knows everyone. It looks like shit to an outsider, but it is not illegal per se. ( I do agree with you about the entries that appear to be “pillow talk” between the Zeringues ). I take a back seat to nobody in my disdain about Jones regarding their behavior in this case and I think that the fee application should be shredded by the Judge but not because of some unknown as yet to be disclosed conflict-but because of the specific reasons listed in the actual motion.. It is crystal clear that Jones Walker is milking this cow so fast it has blisters on the teats and it is a disgrace, not only on the optics but ya gotta feel for that poor cow. . THAT is what you should be writing about, not speculating on disqualifying conflicts, the existence of which were not (in my opinion) raised by document [3891]. Nit picking for sure which is why I did not publicly post. I DO love PACER however but once you go down THAT rabbit hole it can run up some big bucks. BTW I was told about as juicy a piece of gossip that I know regarding this case-since it is unconfirmed, I’ll say no more, but keep your ears to the ground and see if you can pick up something. If it pans out as true and nothing is done, I’ll quit practicing law and start drinking professionally under my back yard oak tree. Have a great Easter and keep up the good work! Gary
Gary F. LeGros, Jr. Lawyer 1217 Main St. Franklin, LA 70538 (337)519-4621 Mailing address 211 Canal St. Jeanerette, LA 70544