Share and Follow
Lin Wood (FREDERIC J. BROWN/AFP via Getty Images)
More than a month after Lin Wood was found liable for defaming his former law partners by saying they criminally extorted him, the attorney known for his representation of Richard Jewell has moved to stop the federal case as he appeals a Georgia judge’s ruling that an insurance company had “no duty to indemnify and no duty to defend its insured,” namely Wood. Now, Wood’s at times contentious deposition in the federal case has gone public.
Wood, who several months ago retired his law license rather than facing possible disbarment for his pro-Donald Trump post-2020 election litigation, has been embroiled in a dispute over money for years with his former law partners Nicole Wade, Jonathan Grunberg, and Taylor Wilson.
U.S. District Judge Michael Brown agreed in March that Wood did “not even try to show” his extortion claims against the plaintiffs “were true.”
“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,” Brown wrote. “The Court disagrees.”
On Monday, as the two sides fought for and against a stay, the judge in the case separately noted that the parties did not “renew their sealing requests,” so he ordered up the unsealing of three documents, including Wood’s deposition from March 2023.
The deposition transcript showed that tensions rose when Andrew Beal, an attorney for the plaintiffs, asked Wood, “Did Jesus tell you to take all the money?”
“That is blasphemy,” Wood said, before his attorney Christopher Harrison added: “All right. We are taking a break.”
Wood then warned Beal of eternal hellfire.
“That is blasphemy. You need to get into the bible my friend, or your are going to spend a long time in hell and eternity. How dare you make that comment about our Lord and our Savior,” he said.
“Lin, let’s take a break,” Harrison encouraged his client, but Wood continued slamming Beal.
“Shame on you. I rebuke you,” Wood said.
Harrison said “just for the record” that Beal was “smirking and smiling” and had made the comment “intentionally to inflame” Wood.
The spat immediately followed Beal’s line of questioning about “the commandments.”
Wood, alluding to the Fifth Commandment, maintained that his former law partners had tried to “subvert[]” his relationship with his children.
“If you know God and you read the bible. They were not only threatening my relationship with my children, but other God’s commandment they were putting my children at risk; so I was not happy with them now for doing it; but I forgive them. I love them. I want to move on from all the nonsense with them even today,” Wood said, according to the transcript.
“So while we are talking about the commandments this also would have allowed you to pocket their $843,000 too?” Beal asked sharply.
“It wasn’t theirs until there was an agreement,” Wood replied.
In a motion to stay, Harrison argued on Wood’s behalf that there was no intent to “frustrate the Court’s inherent ability to control its docket.”
“Rather,” Harrison said, “it reflects an effort by retained counsel to protect Defendant Wood’s interests, to advise the Court of the pending appeal, and to emphasize the absolute certainty of personal financial exposure Defendant Wood faces should this matter be tried given the current ‘no coverage’ finding under the Farm Bureau policies.”
The lawyer said that if Wood is forced to go to trial in the federal case while the state appeal over insurance company coverage continues that would be an “untenable situation” which “exposes Mr. Wood to personal financial exposure should the Plaintiffs prevail on their claims and should a jury return a verdict in their favor.”
Wood’s former law partners countered by arguing against a stay, calling the move both “frivolous” and “a bad faith attempt to delay.”
“Plaintiffs urge this Court to schedule this matter for trial on the earliest available date,” they said. “Wood’s Motion is demonstrably filed in bad faith, as it is not based on any cognizable legal support or any rational position whatsoever.”
Read the deposition here.
