A jury returned a verdict in the case Musk v. Altman, where Bill Savitt represented Sam Altman and OpenAI. Elon Musk is appealing the jury's verdict in the case.

Savitt, a lawyer and partner at the law firm Wachtell, Lipton, achieved a favorable outcome for his clients. Savitt did not deal directly with Elon Musk before the Twitter acquisition litigation.

During cross-examination, Musk stated, "Savitt's questions were designed to trick me." Musk also stated, "You mostly do unfair questions." In response, Savitt stated, "I am trying to put the questions as fairly as I can." Savitt added, "I am doing my best."

Savitt commented on the preparation required for examining a witness with a formidable personality. He stated, "If you have a witness who's a formidable personality, who you know is going to be very smart, you know has the capacity to see around corners, and you know who has the ability to be charming, if you have a witness like that, your task is harder than it would otherwise be." He emphasized the necessity of massive preparation, stating, "And the crucial part of being ready for an examination like that is, this probably won't surprise you, is just massive preparation." Savitt noted, "You have to know every document that's relevant to what this witness may have to say and you've got to know it like that [ snaps fingers ]."

He also advised against getting into a fighting match with the witness. Savitt stated, "It is also really important to never take the bait, never get into a fighting match, never be pushed off of your objective by the force of personality that's in the witness box." He noted that a lawyer should never stick to a script exclusively, as this can lead to missed opportunities during an examination. "That doesn't mean that you should just stick to a script, and I have seen lawyers stick to a script particularly in high-profile examinations, and you miss tremendous opportunities if you do that, because there's always a surprise or two or three in an examination," Savitt said.

Savitt stressed the importance of chronological presentation of facts. "It is remarkable just how much easier it is to understand a succession of facts when they're presented in chronological order," he stated. He noted, "And in the Musk case we just tried, of course, the sequence of events was exceedingly important in all sorts of different ways." Lawdragon published a statement about Savitt in 2015.