Letter to the Editor: Lawyer for Man 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
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
© 2025 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 All'A Death Sentence for TikTok'?: Litigators and Experts Weigh Impact of Potential Ban on Creators and Data Privacy
‘Extremely Disturbing’: AI Firms Face Class Action by ‘Taskers’ Exposed to Traumatic Content
5 minute readPatreon Hit With Lawsuit for Allegedly Diverting Subscriber Data to Meta
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Critical Mass With Law.com’s Amanda Bronstad: LA Judge Orders Edison to Preserve Wildfire Evidence, Is Kline & Specter Fight With Thomas Bosworth Finally Over?
- 2What Businesses Need to Know About Anticipated FTC Leadership Changes
- 3Federal Court Considers Blurry Lines Between Artist's Consultant and Business Manager
- 4US Judge Cannon Blocks DOJ From Releasing Final Report in Trump Documents Probe
- 5White & Case KOs Claims Against Voltage Inc. in Solar Companies' Trade Dispute
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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