In Bizarre Twist Of Events, Vern Unsworth’s Lawyer Capitulates To Elon Musk And Retires From Jury Trials

Just when you thought the “pedo guy” story couldn’t get any stranger than a high priced lawyer striking out on what many believed to be a layup of a case against a billionaire, we get tonight’s stunning Tweet and letter to the editor of Law.com from L. Lin Wood, Vern Unsworth’s (former) lawyer. 

After losing at trial to Elon Musk, lawyer L. Lin Wood took to Twitter to explain – not why his client was wronged by the verdict – but rather, why the verdict against him was correct. It’s an admission that, even if he believed it, would be a stunning slap in the face to his client and would have many questioning why Wood would take the case to begin with. Late on Monday night, Wood tweeted:

Some reflections from lake. The verdict in Unsworth v. Musk spoke the truth. While written as possible libel, Elon Musk only intended an insult. Thus, no factual statements were intended. Truth removes any question marks as to Vern’s reputation. Truth wins. So do both parties.

— Lin Wood (@LLinWood) December 10, 2019

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

To add insult to injury, Wood also published  a letter to the editor at Law.com, congratulating Elon Musk and the lawyers on his team for winning the case. 

Wood opened the letter by saying:

I congratulate Elon Musk and the lawyers on his team at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan for their efforts to achieve a verdict for their client that spoke the truth. Alex Spiro and Bill Price are exceptional lawyers. Their efforts contributed greatly to the verdict that spoke the truth: Musk’s July 15, 2018, comments about Vernon Unsworth were nothing more and nothing less than an insult. Insults by definition do not convey fact. And truth, even in the hands of skilled lawyers, does not change.

He then called Musk’s lawyers “skilled legal adversaries”:

And after a textbook trial between skilled legal adversaries, the verdict was rendered and the truth was revealed, Musk won. So did Unsworth. Musk only had to use his checkbook to pay his lawyers their well-earned fee.

Before then announcing his retirement from being a trial lawyer.

As for me, I promised my family on Thanksgiving Day that the trial for Unsworth would be my last jury trial. I will fade away with my silver hair wisdom ready to help only if needed. I have had the privilege of training a group of skilled young lawyers in this trial to take over the reins and be in the next generation of trial lawyers who purse truth with the best interests of the client at the forefront of their efforts. Lawyers who will never let our profession degenerate to being about money, but who will practice law knowing that it is about the pursuit of truth.

Twitter immediately blew up with outrage at Wood, with some speculating he was paid off by Musk, blackmailed or is simply just an incompetent lawyer looking to make excuses for his poor performance.

Regardless, the acknowledgment that the verdict against him “spoke the truth” is a bizarre statement for any attorney to make after losing at trial in such a public forum. 

Many on Twitter asked Wood to consider the feelings of his client:

Imagine how Vern feels right now? You’ve embarrassed yourselves in more ways than one. What a disgrace to the legal profession.

— mdubs (@mdubs17) December 10, 2019

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Others speculated that he was simply making excuses:

Omg – way to rationalize losing – I bet Vern would have appreciated this great insight before he went thru this whole ordeal if u knew (and u should have known) this was a loser given whatever defense u planned – shameful.

— Scott J, CFA (@RyeNotBerben) December 10, 2019

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Some asked about the obvious potential impact this could have on Unsworth’s pending litigation, should he decide to appeal in the U.S. or pursue a case in the U.K.: 

Am confused. Doesn’t your statement hurt your client’s prospects in litigation that is outstanding in other jurisdictions on the same underlying facts? Do you have (need?) your client’s approval for this statement? .@LLinWood

— Pets and Politics (@amarlevine) December 10, 2019

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Others suggested ethics violations and malpractice:

Am confused. Doesn’t your statement hurt your client’s prospects in litigation that is outstanding in other jurisdictions on the same underlying facts? Do you have (need?) your client’s approval for this statement? .@LLinWood

— Pets and Politics (@amarlevine) December 10, 2019

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

While some speculated that there were perhaps more nefarious forces at work:

This is what money changing hands looks like. https://t.co/FTbH43sdzz

— PlainSite (@PlainSite) December 10, 2019

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Regardless, L. Lin Wood now joins the long line of those who have elected to – for one reason or another – continue to enable Elon Musk’s behavior, behind his entire board of directors, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the NHTSA. 

And with the Federal Reserve doing everything it can to prevent a market pullback or recession, the normal market forces that would sever the head off such an obvious money losing disaster no longer exist to correct these types of malinvestment. 

Has the Tesla boondoggle finally reached escape velocity?