//

‘Is this a conflict?’ (Photo by Apu Gomes/Getty Images)

Delaware law expert Professor Charles Elson sought to file an amicus brief in the ongoing lawsuit over Elon Musk’s plan to have Tesla hand him $56 billion in compensation. Elson’s motion alleged that Tesla, upon hearing of his planned brief, contacted Holland & Knight — where Elson worked as a consultant for almost three decades — to inform them that they would drop the firm as counsel in a wholly unrelated suit if Elson went forward with his brief.

googletag.cmd.push( function() { // Display ad. googletag.display( "div-id-for-top-300x250" ); });

Tesla’s attorneys at Richards Layton & Finger wrote the court to deny the allegations. But also… NOT to deny them?

Sponsored Gain An Instant Understanding Of New Complaints With LexisNexis Snapshot AI-powered complaint summaries to help you spot new lawsuits, new challenges, and new business. From Ethan Beberness  

“Tesla categorically rejects the amicus motion’s suggestion that it is ‘appalling’ or ‘bullying’ to raise a potential conflict issue with outside counsel, or for outside counsel to insist that their lawyers — consultants or otherwise — comply with their ethical and fiduciary responsibilities,” [Rudolf] Koch wrote to Chancellor McCormick. “And the false and irresponsible suggestion that Mr. Musk individually had any role in that conversation confirms that the amicus motion targets some audience other than this court.”

Yes, why would someone suggest that the chief executive that the company plans to pay $59 Billion — despite having only $109 Billion in total assets to its name — wields outsized importance over there? Musk doesn’t involve himself in trivial lawyer calls like, waiving due diligence and conceding to specific performance!

googletag.cmd.push( function() { // Display ad. googletag.display( "div-id-for-middle-300x250" ); }); googletag.cmd.push( function() { // Display ad. googletag.display( "div-id-for-storycontent-440x100" ); }); googletag.cmd.push( function() { // Display ad. googletag.display( "div-id-for-in-story-youtube-1x1" ); });

More to the point though, Elson’s brief is ON TESLA’S BEHALF. The court denied the compensation package as excessive to protect Tesla as a corporate entity. At this point, Musk and his pals are seeking a shareholder vote to approve the package and hoping to claim that this vote sufficiently overcomes the current ruling. Elson plans to opine that it does not. But the point is that, legally, the only party with an interest averse to Elson’s brief is Musk. Given corporate veils and all that, this is a pretty good reason why Elson thinks this is a Musk decision.

Relatedly, Holland & Knight represents Tesla and Elson plans to write as a friend of the court to defend a ruling protecting Tesla. Tesla is correct that it is certainly not “bullying” to raise a potential conflict, but it does require, you know, a conflict.

Sponsored Sponsored Why Do AI And Legal Professionals Make The Perfect Partnership? For many legal departments, generative AI is the technology they’ve been waiting for.  From THOMSON REUTERS   Sponsored Gain An Instant Understanding Of New Complaints With LexisNexis Snapshot AI-powered complaint summaries to help you spot new lawsuits, new challenges, and new business. From Ethan Beberness   Sponsored Law Firms Now Have A Choice In Their Document Comparison Software Six months on since its launch, over 200 firms worldwide are now using Draftable Legal for accurate and reliable document comparison, including UK Top 50… From Draftable   Sponsored AI’s Impact On Law Firms Of Every Size How solo lawyers, midsize firms, and global large law firms have an opportunity to adjust the way they work. From Thomson Reuters  

And this is before we wade into the question of whether the professor’s side gig as a retained Delaware law consultant for Holland & Knight imputed every global firm client upon him as it would an associate. Or the fact that Elson already wrote an amicus brief in this case and NEITHER TESLA NOR HOLLAND & KNIGHT raised an objection until the court repeatedly cited Elson in blocking the package as a complete waste.

So, the suggestion is that it wasn’t a conflict when he argued against Tesla’s proposed package but it is a conflict when he argues that Musk can’t do an end run around the Chancery court? That seems… a stretch.

But we’re all very much looking forward to Tesla’s explanation for why this only became a conflict after they realized that the court is very persuaded by Elson! Surely it will be as compelling as the arguments that successfully got him out of buying Twitter. Oh wait.

googletag.cmd.push( function() { // Display ad. googletag.display( "div-id-for-bottom-300x250" ); });

Tesla Fires Back At Claims It Bullied Retired Law Professor [Law360]

Earlier: Elon Musk Threatening Biglaw Firm To Silence Amicus Brief?

Sponsored Sponsored Diving Into Generative AI: A Practical Guide For Law Firms Starting From Scratch NetDocuments’ Michelle Spencer on where to start, what to ask, and considerations for implementing generative AI tools in your organization. From Ethan Beberness   Sponsored AI’s Impact On Law Firms Of Every Size How solo lawyers, midsize firms, and global large law firms have an opportunity to adjust the way they work. From Thomson Reuters  

Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.

Topics

Biglaw, Elon Musk, Holland & Knight, Technology