L. Lin Wood - Lucian Lincoln "Lin" Wood Jr. - Oct 19, 1952 Libra / Dragon - "I might actually be Christ coming back..."

[Gregg]

Wood basically has moved his shop to South Carolina; this may be a method to protect his South Carolina bar card. I presume South Carolina would initiate some sort of reciprocal discipline proceedings if Georgia actually disbarred him, so this may be a move to avoid South Carolina from acting.

I was wondering if he could reapply in some other State, but that’s been taken care of.

To me, that reads like sloppy language. I believe it is meant to convey only that Wood can't seek PHV status in another court based on his (now retired) Georgia license.

Having said that, I don't believe Wood has a law license from South Carolina.

The Attorney Information Search of the South Carolina Judicial Branch turns up no records for "Lucian Wood" or "Lincoln Wood."

As far as sloppy language goes, I dunno. It hadn't occurred to me that one could use the status of being a "resigned lawyer" as the basis for admission pro hac vice, and if that were the concern, I would have expected language that was more clear.

It did, however, occur to me that the State of Georgia doesn't have jurisdiction to declare who may practice law in other jurisdiction.

OTOH, reciprocal discipline exists in every jurisdiction I've heard of ... oh all right, let's look ... OK: "Every state in the country has a 'reciprocal' discipline rule." Attorney Grievance Commission v. Whitehead, 390 Md. 663, 679 n.12 (2006). However, not every state automatically applies "identical" discipline, particularly when the first jurisdiction has not made extensive findings of fact. Id.

In Whitehead, the attorney had been disbarred by the District of Columbia. Disbarment was "on consent" and was therefore on a limited record. A divided (4/3) court held that (i) it was free to determine under Maryland law the degree of punishment that was appropriate for the attorney's conduct, and (ii) under Maryland precedents, an indefinite suspension with the right to reapply after eighteen months was appropriate.

In light of this, I find it more likely that the reference to other jurisdictions wasn't sloppy language, but rather designed, so far as is possible, to frame a decree, binding under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, that would prevent Wood from practicing law anywhere for the rest of his life.

Almost anywhere, anyhow...

[raison de arizona]

Lin Wood was disbarred in Colorado last month.
https://www.coloradopolitics.com/courts ... fe8b2.html

[Rolodex]

Lin Wood was disbarred in Colorado last month.
https://www.coloradopolitics.com/courts ... fe8b2.html

Always good to see bad news about a cult member. I had no idea he was licensed in CO; I knew he was in GA. He has a home in SC but idk if he's licensed there.

[MN-Skeptic]

Josh Gerstein
@joshgerstein

Famed former Georgia lawyer and 2020 election fraud promoter Lin Wood loses defamation suit to former colleagues he accused of extortion.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 6.90.0.pdf

[Dr. Ken]

damnit beat me to it

[MN-Skeptic]

damnit beat me to it

[Estiveo]

The tl;dr: L. Lin Wood done been runnin' a crypto scam & took at least this victim for over $200,000. Allegedly.

[johnpcapitalist]

The tl;dr: L. Lin Wood done been runnin' a crypto scam & took at least this victim for over $200,000. Allegedly.

Now we get to play everybody's favorite game show: "Which Trump lawyer has fallen the furthest?"

Just when you thought Rudy Giuliani had an insurmountable lead, Lin Wood shows up as a dark horse with a real chance to dethrone ol' Roodles.

[Foggy]

Ahem. He's a piker.

You don't steal $200,000,or even $2 million.

That's nowhere near enough to finance the lifestyle I'd like to become accustomed to, in some foreign land with no extradition treaty with the US.

If'n you don't steal at least $25 million, then don't plan on getting away with it.

[Ben-Prime]

Ahem. He's a piker.

You don't steal $200,000,or even $2 million.

That's nowhere near enough to finance the lifestyle I'd like to become accustomed to, in some foreign land with no extradition treaty with the US.

If'n you don't steal at least $25 million, then don't plan on getting away with it.

In fairness, only the one victim has yet come forward. Yet.

[Maybenaut]

In fairness, only the one victim has yet come forward. Yet.

Also, too, I’m skeptical when a claim of theft of $200K is going to be resolved in a civil trial. One would think either the feds or state law enforcement would want to prosecute this.

I get that the burden of proof is higher in a criminal trial. But what the fuck? Presumably there’s some kind of trail to follow. So why aren’t they prosecuting?

[johnpcapitalist]

Lin's in more trouble, this time, losing a big default judgment to his former law partners:

Pro-Trump defamation attorney Lin Wood must pay former law partners $4.5 million after defaming them as ‘criminal’ extortionists on social media

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.

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.

“[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.

“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.”

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.

[Estiveo]

Quelle dommage.

[chancery]

Off-the-cuff reaction without knowing anything about the facts or proceedings: $3.5 million "actual damages" for defamation committed by a known kook is questionable. A dispute among law partners doesn't involve the power disparity that existed in the Giuliani case.

Edit:

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.”

Subject to the same qualifications, that Wood's argument seems strong. Very, very query what circumstances would lead to the court's conclusion.