Attorney L. Lin Wood, who has spearheaded efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election through the courts, was ordered by a judge in Delaware to explain why he should be allowed to continue representing political operative Carter Page in defamation litigation related to the Mueller probe.
Delaware Superior Court Judge Craig A. Karsnitz issued an order requiring Wood to explain by Jan. 6 why his involvement in three lawsuits challenging President-Elect Biden’s victory over President Trump doesn’t disqualify him under Delaware’s rules of professional conduct.
“It appears to the court that, since the granting of Mr. Wood’s motion” to appear as attorney for Page, “he has engaged in conduct in other jurisdictions which, had it occurred in Delaware, would violate” those rules, the judge wrote, citing “concerns about the appropriateness of continuing” to authorize Wood’s representation.
The Dec. 18 “order to show cause” references two suits in Wisconsin and one in Georgia that asked judges to throw out millions of ballots without any evidence of miscounts or serious voter fraud.
A judge found the Georgia case to have “no basis in fact or law,” using language that’s found directly in a Delaware legal ethics rule setting forth the minimum requirements for any legal action, Karsnitz noted. Wood also “filed or caused” the filing of a false affidavit in that case, according to the order.
The Wisconsin cases, meanwhile, “appear” to have involved “multiple deficiencies” and improprieties, the judge said.
One of them was brought “on behalf of a person who had not authorized it,” referenced documents that “were allegedly filed under seal, but were not,” lacked key affidavits, included one motion “filed in draft form,” failed to explain its request for an expedited injunction, and referenced a “fictitious” citation in a filing signed by Wood’s co-counsel, though not by him, according to the order.
The page detailing the problems with the other Wisconsin case is missing from the order filed to the court docket.
Page’s defamation suit targets Oath Inc., the former name of
It accuses Yahoo! of “maliciously” publishing “false accusations” that he was “secretly plotting with Russian leaders to sabotage the 2016 presidential election"—using language that implied Page had acted treasonously—to help Democrats “concoct” a “collusion” narrative “out of thin air.”
Page was investigated but never charged in connection with Russia’s election interference.
Lin’s response is due the same day Congress formally certifies the election results.
Page is also represented by Bellew LLC, Miller Keefer & Pedico PLLC, and Pierce Bainbridge PC. Oath Inc. is represented by Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP and Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP.
The case is Page v. Oath Inc., Del. Super. Ct., No. S20C-07-030, 12/18/20.