Letter to the Editor: Lawyer for British Caver Who Sued Musk Claims 'Justice Worked' Despite Defense Verdict
"Nothing about Mr. Musk's comments was factual and anyone who thought otherwise would be ignoring the truth as established in a court of law," writes L. Lin Wood.
December 09, 2019 at 06:20 PM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Recorder
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.
In August of 2018, Musk posed a challenge in writing on Twitter, that if Unsworth did not sue over the his comments, then they must be true: "Don't you think it is strange that he hasn't sued me." Based on that challenge, Unsworth had no choice except to sue. If Musk's comments in response to Unsworth's opinion expressed on CNN about his submarine could be construed as factual, the line was drawn and Unsworth's quest to clear his name of any factual insinuations had to commence in a court of law—the ultimate forum for establishing truth. Unsworth had to have the courage and integrity to take on Goliath. When the lawyers for Unsworth committed to suing his case in a court of law, they knew that (1) Musk would have unlimited resources to hire the best lawyers available (and he did so by hiring Quinn Emanuel) and (2) Musk would never settle the case. Unsworth's lawyers knew without any doubt that the pursuit of truth to clear Unsworth's name would end either by motion or a jury trial in California.
Unsworth prevailed on motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment. The jury issue was clear: were Musk's comments a mere insult or were they a factual accusation against Unsworth? The law allowed Unsworth to get to a jury because Musk wrote his words on Twitter. This was a libel case. A legitimate jury issue was presented by the context of Musk's written words when he published his third and final tweet about Unsworth on July 15, "Bet you a signed dollar it's true." After the pretrial rulings, Unsworth's lawyers knew that their pursuit of justice to clear his name must be resolved by a jury verdict.
Unsworth's lawyers put in long, punishing hours to prepare for the trial in Los Angeles, thousands of miles away from home in front of an unknown judge and an unknown jury. They put their personal lives second and made Unsworth's quest their No. 1 priority. Their trial leader knew but did not disclose to them that the quest was not about money—if we were able to pull off the impossible and beat Goliath in his backyard, many other battles over years would have to be fought to collect the money, if the result was about money. The final decision to expend the money, physical and mental health, sacrifice of family, and personal wishes was not about money. It was about the pursuit of truth for Unsworth in a court of law to finally, fully and forever clear his good name from the impact of anyone who thought Musk's comments were factual. The decisions and efforts of Unsworth's lawyers that followed were undertaken in the finest traditions of our profession. Those decisions and efforts were made in the pursuit of truth, not in the pursuit of money. The practice of law is a profession, not a business.
We raised the stakes by making extraordinary monetary demands for the case. We wanted our pursuit of truth to be highlighted so that as many people as possible would pay attention when truth was revealed. Musk wanted a trial and so did Unsworth. 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. Unsworth had a judicial finding that the comments were only an insult—not intended to be factual. The truth of the verdict cleared his name and restored his reputation. Nothing about Musk's comments was factual and anyone who thought otherwise would be ignoring the truth as established in a court of law. And truth can be challenged, but it never changes.
The lawyers for Unsworth who demonstrated their commitment to the highest ideals of our profession and made the personal sacrifices required to put the client's best interests ahead of their own were Mark Stephens of London, Matt Wood of Austin, Texas, Chris Chatham of Los Angeles and Taylor Wilson, Jonathan Grunberg and Nicole Wade of Atlanta. These lawyers and the lawyers at Quinn Emanuel displayed the finest qualities of our profession—a profession to which I have dedicated the last 43 years of my life. I hope that every lawyer who learns of this case will view it as a shining example of professionalism.
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.
The truth vindicated Musk and Unsworth. Our system of justice worked. Truth emerged and all of those privileged to participate in our system leave this case as winners.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllHow Kramer Levin's Patent Trial Team Approaches Teaching Tech to Juries
Litigators of the Week: Kirkland Fends Off Antitrust Claims for Thomson Reuters Against AI-Backed Start-Up
'Corporate Lawyers Who Happen to Litigate': A Closer Look at a Recent Securities Litigation Hot Streak at Freshfields
Litigators of the Week: Robbins Geller Lands $490M Securities Settlement in Case Over Apple's Prospects in China
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250