The court stated that, among other things, even though the court claimed that it was not affected by the conjecture of Wood that Wood’s conduct precipitated January 6’s traumatic events, its determination to pin this on Wood without providing any evidence and giving Wood the opportunity to reply is an indication of an unfair process. This is the majority of today’s orders:
Carter Page, a Delaware attorney, filed in July 2020 a defamation suit against Oath, Inc. alleging that Oath’s subsidiary publications had falsely accused him of conspiring with Russian agents to influence the 2016 election. Shortly after that, Page’s Delaware counsel moved … for the admission pro hac vice L. Lin Wood was a Georgia-licensed lawyer so that he could serve as Page’s attorney during Page’s defamation proceeding. The court granted the motion….
[On December 18, 2020]The Superior Court sua sponte Wood must show cause by being issued with a Rule to Show Cause pro hac vice Should not be cancelled. The Rule states that “[i]T appear[ed]According to the Court, Mr. Wood was granted asylum in 2005. [pro hac vice]He moves,[d] engaged in conduct in other jurisdictions, which, had it occurred in Delaware, would violate the Delaware Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct….”
Wood’s behavior in Georgia and Wisconsin litigation related to the 2020 Presidential Election on November 3, 2020 was highlighted in the Rule. The court specifically pointed out several irregularities in a United States District Court for Eastern District of Wisconsin action. According to our knowledge, Wood did not sign the case’s pleadings but he was named as an “attorney-to-be noticed”
Also, the court referred to a United States District Court of Northern District of Georgia complaint of questionable Merit. In which, according to the court, Wood was “filed or caused to file”. [an expert affidavit] …[,] which contained materially false information….” Wood, the plaintiff in the Georgia case was represented by counsel.
Wood and Delaware’s counsel were directed by the court to respond to Rule to Show Cause no later than January 6, 2021. It also said that they would hear counsel [January 13, 2021—the date set for oral argument on the pending motion to dismiss]”In response to the Rule to Show Cause.” …
Wood replied that he did not believe that Wood had infringed on any of the Delaware Professional Conduct Rules, or other conduct rules in relation to his participation in the Court’s citing matters. Wood also stated that he was not the counsel for the Georgia case, but that he represented the plaintiff in this matter. He stated further that there was no claim against him of any sanctionable conduct or disciplinary misconduct. [his counsel]Wood, his firm or anyone against him as plaintiff in the Georgia litigation. Wood, in connection to a questionable statement referred to as the Rule to Show Cause said that he “denied any intention of the parties to mislead Court.”
Wood stated that he wasn’t the Wisconsin attorney of record and that he was only listed as “Counsel To Be Noticed” in the docket. Wood also stated that he was not present in the case within the short eight-day time period between the dismissal date and filing. Wood asked for the revocation of his prohac vice admission, despite legal objections.[ed] to withdraw his application for pro hac vice admission and his appearance” ….
The Superior Court released a Memorandum of Opinion and Order revoking an earlier order admitting Wood on January 11th, 2021. This was two days before hearings on the defendant’s motion to dismiss, and the judge’s Rule to Show Cause. pro hac vice Annulling and reversing the January 13 argument in the motion to dismiss As of that date, neither the Georgia nor the Wisconsin court had cited Wood for sanctionable conduct….
Superior Court Civil Rule 90.1 (e) states that:[t]The Court can revoke pro hac Vice admission sua-sponte, or on the motion of any party, if it finds that continued admission pro Hac vice is inappropriate or unwise after hearings or other meaningful opportunities to respond. We examine a court’s decision not to revoke a lawyer’s licence. pro hac vice Motion for the abuse of discretion
Despite all the concern expressed by the Superior Court’s Rule to Show Cause as to whether Wood’s behavior in Georgia and Wisconsin violated Delaware Lawyers’ Rule of Professional Conduct (if so, why), it maintained in its opinion that it was not disciplining lawyers. The court stated that it was simply making a decision under Superior Court Civil Rule 9.0.1(e) about the properness and necessity of Wood’s continued conduct. pro hac vice admission.
However, the court didn’t explain why Wood requested to withdraw his request. pro hac vice The court had a limited concern and application and appearance didn’t address it. Wood did not have the chance to make an appearance at the hearing scheduled for two days, which was supposed to be hearing his answer to Rule to Show Cause. The court instead made adverse factual findings. Wood’s actions in Georgia and Wisconsin litigation were “not in my favor,” the Court ruled. [the court’s]jurisdiction, displayed toxic mix of incompetence, pretense, and mendacity.”
Also, the Court found no basis for Georgia’s decision that “no legal or factual basis” was sufficient to deny its grant. [Wood]The [injunctive]He is relieved [sought],” “indicate[d]”The Georgia case was a textbook example of frivolous litigation.” Yet neither the Georgia trial court nor the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, to which Wood appealed, made any findings that Wood’s complaint was frivolous or filed in bad faith…. [A]Claims that are not supported by law may be found unfounded. However, facts can still prove non-frivolous.
More questionable yet was the court’s insinuation that Wood was at least partially responsible for the troubling events that occurred at the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021—a topic not addressed in the Rule to Show Cause.
The Superior Court reached these conclusions based on Wood’s written responses. It did this using a paper record in advance of the hearing scheduled. Even though it stated that Wood’s behavior did not cause the January 6 traumatizing events, the Superior Court ruled that this was not the case. It also deemed the process unfair by putting the blame on Wood for the same without providing any evidence and giving Wood the opportunity to reply.
The court was interested in more than Wood’s continuing involvement in this case. This is evident from both the order and memorandum opinion of the Superior Court. In fact, one cannot read the court’s order without concluding that the court intended to cast aspersions on Wood’s character, referring to him as “either mendacious or incompetent” and determining that he was not “of sufficient character” to practice in the courts of our State. Although we do not have any opinion about the validity of such characterizations, there is no evidence from the Superior Court that support them. Similar to the court’s investigation into January 6, and the unambiguous finding that it “…”[n]o doubt [Wood’s] tweets … incited the  riots,” was not justified given the scope of the Rule to Show Cause and the record.
The Superior Court’s revocation decision is based upon factual findings that have no supporting record. We also find it inappropriate for the court to justify Wood’s withdrawal as the court has concerns over whether Wood should be allowed to continue admission.
Let’s be very clear. pro hac vice When a judge in this state accuses someone of grave misconduct in another jurisdiction, they can issue an order to stop the practice of law in that state. It might be appropriate to issue—as the court did in this case—a rule to show cause why the out-of-state lawyer’s pro hac vice It is against the law to revoke status and, if necessary, to enforce that rule.
If the misconduct claims in another country have not been determined, then there can be no claim that this misconduct has affected or disrupted proceedings in the State. In such cases, the lawyer will withdraw his appearance. pro hac vice Admission is an abuse in discretion. The lawyer cannot withdraw his motion for withdrawal in favour of an involuntary revocation.
The Superior Court issued the following: A Memorandum Opinion, January 11, 2021, and an Order revoking its August 18,2020 Order, which granted Wood’s request for admission to practise in this matter pro hac vice Is hereby VACATED.