FILE — In this Dec. 2, 2020 file photo, Attorney Lin Wood, a member of President Donald Trump’s legal team, gestures while speaking during a rally in Alpharetta, Ga. (AP Photo/Ben Margot, File).
Pro-Donald Trump defamation attorney L. Lin Wood must pay three of his former law partners a combined $4.5 million after he was found liable for defaming them on social media, a jury on Friday determined.
In March, a federal judge ruled in the plaintiffs’ favor on a motion for summary judgment — finding Wood liable but leaving the matter and amount of damages up to jurors in the Northern District of Georgia.
After a two-phase trial that lasted eight days with eight people sitting in judgment, the jury decided on actual damages of $3.75 million and concomitant litigation expenses of $750,000.
In an email to Law&Crime, Wood said he planned to appeal.
A former attorney, long recognized as a prominent and respected member of the Peach State’s plaintiffs’ bar, Wood found himself on the defendant’s end of the legal system after a lengthy feud with his erstwhile colleagues about money.
Attorneys Nicole Wade, Jonathan Grunberg, and Taylor Wilson had it out with Wood since February 2020 over the terms of their departure from his law firm. After a series of abortive agreements and legal threats over how much — and when — the trio would be paid, Wood accused his former partners of extortion on the Telegram app.
More Law&Crime coverage: ‘I rebuke you’: Lin Wood deposition got heated when attorney for ex-law partners asked ‘Did Jesus tell you to take all the money?’
The federal lawsuit was finally filed in March 2022 — and the court ruled in the plaintiffs’ favor just a few days shy of two years later.
“[T]he question is whether the accusations were false and defamatory,” U.S. District Judge Michael J. Brown wrote in March. “Plaintiffs say they were as a matter of law. The Court agrees.”
In that earlier opinion and order, the judge outlines the extensive wrangling and horse-trading over a relatively small number of disagreements between the once-partnered-up attorneys.
The first failed agreement over fee-splitting for the business breakup concerned six cases: three cases that had yet to be settled and three settled but not yet paid-out cases. In each case, the plaintiffs would have been paid between 50% and 80% of the forthcoming fees.
“Just days after the parties reached this agreement, Defendant told Plaintiffs he would not comply with it — even though it was his idea — because he believed the parties had other issues that required resolution,” the court notes. “This led to a second agreement.”
The March 2020 agreement also included a non-disparagement clause, which prohibited Wood from saying negative things about his former law partners. That agreement fell apart by July 2020.
“On August 25, 2020, Plaintiffs told Defendant they would sue him for breach of contract and fraud if he did not pay what they demanded,” the court explains. “Defendant asked Plaintiffs to hold off on filing suit so they could discuss settlement. To accommodate that request, and with the agreement of both sides, Plaintiffs sent Defendant a copy of their draft complaint and confirmed they would not file suit before August 27, 2020.”
But the day before that deadline was the day the accusations began, the court notes.
On Aug. 26, 2020, Wood began contacting his former partners’ clients and co-counsel and said they were “extortionists” who were threatening to sue him to “extort” money from him. Later that same day, already wise to the extortion allegations, the three lawyers sent Wood a demand letter for $1.25 million — as a means of settling all of their extant claims over the unpaid fees — along with violating the non-disparagement agreement, attorneys’ fees, and defamation.
After another deadline lapsed, Wood’s former partners sued him in state court for breach of contract.
Then came the online defamation campaign.
“During a five-week period the following year, Defendant repeatedly accused Plaintiffs of criminal extortion in a series of messages he posted on a social media platform called Telegram,” the federal court’s opinion reads. “Hundreds of thousands of people viewed Defendant’s messages.”
In March 2022, Wood’s ex-law partners sued.
As the case progressed, Wood was held in contempt by the court for disparaging his former partners and fined $5,000.
On motions for summary judgment filed by both sides, the court ruled in the plaintiff’s favor on the defamation claims. Both sides, however, lost two separate motions to seal.
“Tellingly, Defendant does not even try to show his accusations were true,” Brown’s opinion reads. “Indeed, he admits Plaintiffs did not commit ‘the crime of extortion.’ But he insists his extortion accusations were still non-false because they contained ‘loose, figurative, or hyperbolic language’ that no reasonable person could construe as a genuine accusation of criminal conduct. The Court disagrees.”
Months of motion practice ensued after the trio won their partial motion for summary judgment.
The jury trial began Aug. 7. Both sides offered presentations.
On Aug. 15, the jury returned the $3.75 million award for actual damages related to defamation — after some four hours of deliberations. The jury also determined that Wood did not defame his former partners with actual malice — the highest, most exacting standard in defamation law and the hardest to prove.
After another day of trial, the jury returned the $750,000 litigation expenses award. The federal court docket only noted that the plaintiffs offered a presentation during the second phase.
The jury verdict forms are available here.
Have a tip we should know? [email protected]
