(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
Tesla’s
plan
to
hand
Musk
personally
$56
billion
—
a
waste
of
corporate
value
that
Tesla’s
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
Elson’s
brief
repeatedly,
Elson
says
Tesla
suddenly
conjured
up
objections
to
his
further
participation.
After
Tesla’s
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
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
statement
that
it
was
pressured
by
Tesla.
“Holland
&
Knight
determined
that
Charles
Elson’s
proposed
course
of
action
was
inconsistent
with
the
firm’s
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
firm’s
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
—
She’s
Not
Even
Opening
Them
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.