In this image taken on December 2, 2020, Attorney Lin Wood, a member of President Donald Trump’s legal team, is seen gesturing while speaking at a rally in Alpharetta, Georgia.
A federal court on Tuesday found L. Lin Wood, the pro-Donald Trump defamation attorney, liable for defaming his former law partners.
Attorneys Nicole Wade, Jonathan Grunberg, and Taylor Wilson have been engaged in a dispute with Wood since February 2020 regarding the terms of their departure from his law firm. They have encountered several failed attempts at reaching agreements and faced legal threats concerning the amount and timing of their payment. In response, Wood accused his former partners of extortion via the Telegram app.
According to Judge Michael J. Brown of the Northern District of Georgia, the crucial matter at hand is whether the accusations made were indeed false and defamatory. He concurs with the plaintiffs’ argument that they were, as a matter of law.
Related Coverage:
In the initial dispute regarding fee-sharing for the business dissolution, six cases were involved. This comprised of three unsettled cases and three cases that had been settled but not yet paid out. Under the proposed agreement, the plaintiffs would have received a portion of the future fees, ranging from 50% to 80%.
The court highlights that Defendant, just days after the parties reached an agreement, informed Plaintiffs that he would not comply with it, despite it being his own suggestion. Defendant believed that there were additional issues that needed to be resolved, which led to a second agreement.
The March 2020 agreement, importantly, also contained a non-disparagement clause that prevented Wood from making negative remarks about his former law partners. However, the agreement unraveled by July 2020.
According to the court, on August 25, 2020, the plaintiffs informed the defendant that they would take legal action against him for breach of contract and fraud if he did not fulfill their demands. In response, the defendant requested the plaintiffs to delay filing the lawsuit in order to discuss a potential settlement. Both parties agreed to this arrangement, and as a result, the plaintiffs shared a copy of their draft complaint with the defendant and confirmed that they would not proceed with the lawsuit before August 27, 2020.
According to the court notes, the accusations started the day before the deadline.
On August 26, 2020, Wood initiated communication with the clients and co-counsel of his former partners, accusing them of being “extortionists” who intended to sue him in order to extort money. In response to these allegations, the three lawyers, who were already aware of the extortion claims, sent Wood a demand letter for $1.25 million. This letter aimed to settle all outstanding claims related to unpaid fees, violation of the non-disparagement agreement, attorneys’ fees, and defamation.
Wood’s former partners took legal action against him in state court, accusing him of breaching their contract, after yet another deadline passed.
Next, the online defamation campaign ensued.
According to the federal court’s opinion, the Defendant made numerous accusations of criminal extortion against the Plaintiffs over a five-week period. These accusations were repeatedly posted on a social media platform known as Telegram, and they garnered the attention of hundreds of thousands of people.
In March 2022, Wood’s former law partners filed a defamation lawsuit against him in federal court. The court held Wood in contempt as the case moved forward due to his disparaging remarks about his ex-partners, resulting in a fine of $5,000.
The court sided with the plaintiff on the defamation claims after considering motions for summary judgment filed by both parties.
The opinion states that the Defendant does not make any effort to demonstrate the truth of his accusations. He even acknowledges that the Plaintiffs did not commit the crime of extortion. However, he argues that his extortion accusations were not false because they were expressed using loose, figurative, or hyperbolic language that no reasonable person would interpret as a genuine accusation of criminal behavior. The Court, however, disagrees with this argument.
In the ruling, there are various instances mentioned that demonstrate how Wood defamed his colleagues. These examples serve as evidence that Wood’s intentions were clear when he made these statements.
The author of the opinion emphasizes the following points:
Defendant’s posts included a slew of assertions that preclude any inference of non-literalness, including that Plaintiffs engaged in “criminal extortion,” “committed the crime of attempted extortion,” and were “guilty of the crime”; “[t]he law does not sanction lawyers’ engaging in such conduct”; “other lawyers … agree”; Defendant was “considering whether to pursue criminal actions against Plaintiffs”; Plaintiffs were “extortionist lawyers who should be disbarred”; and “[t]he public should file bar complaints against them.” Defendant made some of these statements in a discovery response that he posted on Telegram, further bolstering the impression he meant them. He also told readers his discovery response was “correct and truthful” because, “[a]s a trial lawyer with 43 years experience,” he knew it had to be.
As a renowned attorney known for his representation of JonBenét Ramsey’s parents and the falsely accused Richard Jewell, I have previously characterized my ex-partners’ allegations as typical unfounded legal action. I firmly assert that my opinions, which are rooted in factual evidence, are protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Law&Crime reached out to Wood for comment on the court’s ruling, but we did not receive a response at the time of publication.
