Elon Musk Threatening Biglaw Firm To Silence Amicus Brief? – Above the Law

(Photo by Apu Gomes/Getty Images)

A couple years back, Elon Musk threatened to drop Cooley LLP unless they fired a newly hired associate who had just joined from the SEC. Cooley responded with a resounding nope. Alas, Musk might not have learned his lesson from this incident, as a new filing in Delaware Chancery alleges that Musk, acting through Tesla, leaned on Holland & Knight to halt a renowned professor from filing an amicus brief.

Professor Charles Elson sought to provide additional insight on Delaware corporate law in the ongoing fight over Teslas plan to hand Musk personally $56 billion a waste of corporate value that Teslas meme stock investors confuse for a brilliant move. The court already rejected that payment, but now Tesla is trying to use a shareholder vote to overcome the Delaware ruling, something that Professor Elson notes is unprecedented, which is a more professional phrasing for utterly bonkers.

Elson previously filed an amicus brief in the first phase of the case without incident, but when the opinion rejecting the pay package cited Elsons brief repeatedly, Elson says Tesla suddenly conjured up objections to his further participation.

After Teslas attorneys at DLA Piper suggested that Elson had some newfound conflict of interest, Elson says he heard from Holland & Knight, where Elson enjoyed a nearly 30-year consulting arrangement:

Soon after, Professor Elson received an email from Holland & Knight LLP, a law firm with which Professor Elson had a consulting relationship. Holland & Knight informed Professor Elson that the firm represents Tesla in certain unrelated matters and that Tesla had threatened to fire Holland & Knight if Professor Elson submitted this amicus brief.

Elson responded to this by just resigning his consultancy. For its part, Holland & Knight told Reuters:

Holland & Knight denied in an email statement that it was pressured by Tesla. Holland & Knight determined that Charles Elsons proposed course of action was inconsistent with the firms obligations to its client, Tesla, the statement said. This determination was not based on any coercion or threats by anyone, including Tesla.

It was inconsistent with the firms obligations but only the second time he penned an amicus brief? So is Holland & Knight admitting that it was in breach of these firm obligations when Elson filed his first brief?

Seems like a weird admission.

Tesla threatened to fire law firm in bid to block Musk pay critic court document [Reuters]

Earlier: Biglaw Firm Chooses Associate Over Elon Musk Elon Musk Supporters Bombard Judge With Angry Letters Shes Not Even Opening Them

Joe Patriceis a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free toemail any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him onTwitterif youre interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.

More here:

Elon Musk Threatening Biglaw Firm To Silence Amicus Brief? - Above the Law