Elon Musk's Lawyer Might be Sanctioned for Showing Up Uninvited and Being Annoying

Elon Musk is in court again, and at this point we've lost count of the lawsuits against him. Like usual with Musk, there's a lot of drama, in the courtroom and out. But this time, the man at the center of the drama is not Musk himself, but his attorney, Alex Spiro. Spiro has a reputation for heating things up in the courtroom.

Now, he may have picked on the wrong opposing counsel, who's just asked the court to sanction Spiro. How did this case turn into a battle of the attorneys?

Spiro the Dragon

Spiro is a partner at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan's New York office. Quinn Emanuel is known as a premier business litigation firm, focusing specifically on representing clients in business disputes. They have a reputation for being aggressive and successful in court, often ranking highly in various legal industry rankings. BTI Consulting Group ranks law firms annually and hands out prizes for being intimidating. They have a yearly awarding to the “Fearsome Foursome,” the four firms in the country who “strike the utmost fear into the hearts” of other attorneys. Quinn Emanuel has earned the #1 spot within the Fearsome Foursome three times in the past four years.

In other words, the fact that Spiro is a partner at maybe the most feared law firm in the country might clue you in to his courtroom tactics. He has extensive experience as a trial lawyer, having argued over 50 cases to verdict. Before entering private practice, he worked as a prosecutor, even helping convict serial killers. Spiro is known for representing celebrities and wealthy individuals, so Musk is representative.

Musk's Defamation Defender

Last fall, a 22-year-old Californian named Ben Brody filed a lawsuit against Musk, alleging that the billionaire publicly made false statements about him. He accused Musk of a “serial pattern of slander,” saying that he falsely told the world that Brody was involved with a neo-Nazi group and participated in a “violent brawl.” He claims these statements have caused Brody to be harassed and threatened, and his reputation to be damaged. Brody is suing for $1 million to compensate for the damage to his reputation and the emotional distress caused by the harassment.

But Musk had a guy to call. The self-styled "Chief Troll Officer" had been taken to court over defamation before, back in 2018. In that case, the British cave explorer Vernon Unsworth had participated in the rescue efforts of the Thai soccer team that was famously trapped in a flooded cave. Musk posted a series of tweets on Twitter that called Unsworth some funny names, and it led to a defamation lawsuit. But in that case, Alex Spiro was able to get Musk off, after a four-day trial left the jury finding him not liable.

Maybe riding off that success, Musk decided to retain Spiro and his firm Quinn Emmanuel for the next defamation suit from Brody. The lawyer has argued to the court that Brody’s defamation claim should be dismissed because he doesn’t think that Brody has sufficiently proven that there’s been defamation. Spiro argued that Musk’s statement “simply does not refer to Brody, either directly or indirectly,” but rather, “the tweet is in reply to, and beneath, a photo of a person who is not Brody.”

Brody is represented by his own famous attorney, Mark Bankston. Even you don’t recognize the name, you might be familiar with the Sandy Hook school shooting and the ensuing lawsuits. Bankston represented the parents of one of the victims and won them an award of $45 million against the shooter, Alex Jones.

Aggressive Lawyering or Obnoxious Interfering?

Now, Bankston is taking up issue with not just Musk, but Musk’s attorney, for what he claims is unprofessional lawyering. First, Bankston claimed that Spiro was not allowed to represent Musk in Texas, as he had not gone through the proper procedures to appear in Texas court. Spiro isn’t licensed in Texas, but needed to show up for his client there, because that’s where Brody had brought the lawsuit.  So, Spiro had asked the court for what’s called a motion for pro hac vice.

A motion for pro hac vice is a request made by an attorney to a court for permission to appear in a single case before that court. This happens when the attorney filing the motion is not admitted to practice law in the state where the court is located. The permission is for a specific case, not for general practice in that court (the name literally translates to "for this one occasion”). The out-of-state attorney must usually associate with a local attorney who is admitted to practice in the court. The local attorney can provide guidance on local court rules and procedures. Essentially, it's a way for a qualified lawyer from another jurisdiction to participate in a specific case if their expertise is needed.

Last month, Bankston set up a deposition of Musk for Brody’s defamation case against him. A deposition is essentially an out-of-court interview, part of the discovery phase where both sides gather information. Depositions happen before the actual trial, and the purpose is to gather information from the witness to be used later in court. During a deposition, lawyers for both sides take turns asking the witness questions and the witness must answer truthfully, while a court reporter or recording device captures everything that's said.

But the court had not granted Spiro’s motion for pro hac vice by the time the deposition rolled around. Instead of rescheduling the deposition, which is what Spiro should have done, he showed up anyway. Not only that, but he did a couple of other “lawyerly” things that you’re not supposed to do before you’re admitted pro hac vice: he prepared and signed pleadings in Texas court on behalf of Musk, and he drafted and served Texas legal papers on Brody.  

"Astonishingly Unprofessional"

But that wasn’t Bankston’s only problem. When Spiro did show up to the deposition unauthorized, according to Bankston, he acted “astonishingly” unprofessionally. Bankston claims that Spiro
“continually interrupted the deposition with commentary, gave numerous improper instructions not to answer, berated opposing counsel, insulted plaintiff’s claims, mocked counsel’s questions, and generally acted in the most obnoxious manner one could contemplate without crossing into parody.” Those are some colorful words.

The transcript of the deposition shows Spiro interrupting most of the questions that Bankston asked Musk. Lawyers are supposed to defend their clients from unfair questioning by the other attorney, certainly. But perhaps Spiro’s tactics were more offensive than defensive.

Bankston wasn’t just irritated; he was going to do something about it. He asked the court to sanction Spiro. He claimed that Spiro’s aggressive conduct “disrupted   the   deposition,   prevented   relevant   questioning  relating  to  Plaintiff ’s  TCPA  response,  and  demonstrated  disrespect  for  the  sanctity of these proceedings.” He’s asking the court to order Musk to pay for their wasted time, to pay a fine for their behavior, and to deny the pro hac vice application that’s still pending.

It's not sure how the court will rule, but we can expect Spiro not to step out of the picture without a fight.

Related Resources:

• Why Does Elon Musk Want to Move Tesla’s Incorporation From Delaware? (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life)
• Defamation vs. False Light: What Is the Difference? (FindLaw's Learn About the Law)
• Elon Musk Wins Again, Found Not Liable for Tesla Tweets (FindLaw's Courtside)