A federal court found attorney L. Lin Wood, known for his pro-Donald Trump stance and expertise in defamation cases, liable for defaming his former law partners. This ruling holds him accountable for his actions.
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. Despite several unsuccessful attempts to reach agreements and the exchange of legal threats concerning the amount and timeline of their payment, Wood resorted to accusing his former partners of extortion on the Telegram app.
Judge Michael J. Brown of the Northern District of Georgia concurs with the plaintiffs’ assertion that the accusations made against them were false and defamatory. In his statement, he emphasizes the importance of determining the truthfulness of these allegations.
In the initial dispute regarding fee distribution for the business dissolution, the disagreement revolved around a small number of cases. Specifically, there were six cases involved: three cases that were still in the process of being resolved, and three cases that had been settled but the payments had not yet been made. In each of these cases, the plaintiffs were expected to receive between 50% and 80% of the fees that were due in the future.
In March 2020, an agreement was reached that notably included a non-disparagement clause. This clause prevented Wood from making negative comments about his former law partners. However, by July 2020, the agreement had fallen apart.
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 comply with their demands. In response, the Defendant requested the Plaintiffs to delay filing the lawsuit so that they could explore the possibility of reaching a settlement. Both parties agreed to this arrangement, and as a result, the Plaintiffs shared a copy of their draft complaint with the Defendant and assured him that they would not initiate legal proceedings 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 extract money. Responding swiftly to these allegations, the three lawyers sent Wood a demand letter on the same day, seeking a settlement amount of $1.25 million to resolve all outstanding claims related to unpaid fees, breach of the non-disparagement agreement, attorneys’ fees, and defamation.
Wood’s former partners took legal action against him in state court for breaching their contract after another deadline passed.
Next, the online defamation campaign emerged.
In a federal court’s opinion, it was stated that the Defendant repeatedly accused the Plaintiffs of criminal extortion through a series of messages posted on the social media platform called Telegram. These messages garnered the attention of hundreds of thousands of people.
In March 2022, Wood faced a lawsuit for defamation from his former law partners in federal court. Throughout the proceedings, Wood’s contemptuous remarks about his ex-partners led to him being held in contempt by the court, 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.
In a significant observation, the opinion states that the Defendant does not make any attempt to demonstrate the veracity of his accusations. He even admits that the Plaintiffs did not commit the crime of extortion. However, he contends that his extortion accusations were not false because they were expressed in loose, figurative, or hyperbolic language that no reasonable person would interpret as a genuine accusation of criminal behavior. Nevertheless, the Court disagrees with this argument.
Wood’s defamation of his colleagues is evident in the ruling, which provides numerous examples of his actions and clearly establishes his intent behind them.
The opinion, in its entirety, highlights the following key 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.
In response to his ex-partners’ claims, the renowned attorney, known for representing JonBenét Ramsey’s parents and Richard Jewell, characterized their allegations as “classic frivolous litigation.” He firmly asserted that his opinions, grounded in factual evidence, are safeguarded as protected speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
