In a striking development in the bankruptcy litigation surrounding MMA Law Firm, a Houston bankruptcy court has ordered Morris Bart, LLC, the well-known New Orleans plaintiffs’ firm, to turn over any communications it had with U.S. Magistrate Judge Michael B. North of Louisiana. The ruling, handed down by Chief Judge Eduardo V. Rodriguez of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas, raises serious ethical and procedural questions in the high-stakes fee dispute between Morris Bart and MMA.
The Dispute: Where It Began
The demand for disclosure stems from a bitter fight over attorney’s fees in the Chapter 11 case filed by MMA Law Firm (formerly McClenny Moseley & Associates). MMA filed for bankruptcy in April 2024. Morris Bart, which has taken over a substantial portion of MMA’s former tort and mass-tort caseload, has been locked in litigation with MMA over how much of the settled case proceeds it is entitled to.
In an earlier action, Morris Bart accused MMA of engaging in unauthorized practice of law and interfering with its business relationships. A district court in Louisiana dismissed key parts of that case — including declaratory relief — on standing grounds, but left open others. As part of the dispute, a status conference was held with Magistrate Judge North, resulting in a consent order requiring MMA to surrender client files to Morris Bart, to cease communicating with clients represented by Morris Bart, and to notify its former agents of the new representation.
The Order to Disclose: What the Bankruptcy Court Did
At a hearing before Chief Judge Rodriguez, Morris Bart objected to turning over private communications with Judge North. The firm argued that such communications were privileged or otherwise protected from discovery. But Rodriguez rejected those objections and ordered Morris Bart to produce any correspondence, messages, or other communications with the magistrate judge.
Although the court’s public order does not yet detail the substance of those communications, the very fact that they exist raises hard questions. Why were they made? By whom? And could they have influenced how the fee dispute has played out?
Why This Matters: Implications & Concerns
-
Judicial Ethics & Ex Parte Contact
The order invites scrutiny into whether there was any improper or undisclosed communication between a private law firm and a sitting judge. Even if the communications were benign, the appearance of potential ex parte contact is troubling. It could raise ethics concerns not just for Morris Bart but also for the judge involved. -
Impact on Bankruptcy Fee Litigation
For MMA’s estate and its creditors, the disclosure could be significant in revealing whether private contact shaped the negotiation or hashing out of fee allocations. Depending on what emerges, it may affect how the court views Morris Bart’s claims for fees or the legitimacy of its position. -
Precedent for Future Cases
The order may set a broader precedent in bankruptcy litigation. If courts are willing to probe communications between law firms and judges, other parties involved in fee disputes or reorganizations may face more aggressive inquiry into off-the-record communications.
Context: The Broader MMA-Morris Bart Feud
The conflict between Morris Bart and MMA has deep roots. In earlier litigation, Morris Bart challenged MMA’s entitlement to fees in hundreds of Louisiana hurricane cases, arguing that MMA improperly solicited clients and engaged in unauthorized legal practices. That case was dismissed on several claims by a federal judge, though not without expressing concern over MMA’s conduct.
In the bankruptcy proceeding, Chief Judge Rodriguez has already made critical rulings. On November 1, 2024, he issued a memorandum opinion in which he addressed, among other things, MMA’s motion to strike Morris Bart’s jury demand. That decision underscored how central the fee dispute is to the estate’s administration, and how complex the litigation has become.
More recently, Morris Bart filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in federal court, seeking to quash subpoenas tied to the bankruptcy investigation. The dynamics of trust, discovery, and transparency continue to shift.
What Happens Next
- Document Production: Morris Bart must now turn over whatever communications it holds with Judge North. Depending on their content, they could be entered into the bankruptcy record or become part of public filings.
- Further Litigation: If the communications reveal anything substantial — for example, strategy discussions or pressure points — they could trigger additional motions, even sanctions, or feed into broader adversary proceedings.
- Ethics Review: Although there is no public sign yet of a formal judicial ethics investigation, the possibilities of review by judicial conduct bodies can’t be ignored.
Take-Away for the Legal Community
This ruling underscores the delicate balance in bankruptcy law between privileged strategy and transparency — especially when it involves communications with the bench. On one hand, law firms routinely communicate with judges in legitimate ways (scheduling, settlement talks, procedural issues). But on the other hand, when communications cover substance, strategy, or negotiation, they raise real ethical risks.
For practitioners, the case is a reminder that communications with judges — even off-the-record — may not remain private if tied to contested litigation, particularly in bankruptcy. For the wider legal ecosystem, it underscores how high-stakes fee litigation can intersect with judicial oversight, and how bankruptcy courts may demand greater accountability.
Looking for Your Next Legal Career Move?
Stay ahead of the competition with the most comprehensive legal job board in the country. Whether you’re exploring opportunities in bankruptcy law, litigation, or corporate practice, LawCrossing gives you access to thousands of exclusive listings you won’t find anywhere else.
Discover your next role today — visit LawCrossing and start your search now.
