Well laying out that he was payed $2 million per year pro rata when the guy--in court--clearly does not have that stature in the economy, which you can tell by his appearance and bearing and how he speaks--is suspicious. Like these guys are negotiating in court, he himself is negotiating in court on behalf of his client, the fee looks like he's cashing in with them as opposed to offering objectivity. Which doesn't exist, a smoke and mirror concept, but the idea is to reduce prejudice, meaning judge in the moment, with partiality switching, rather than being neutral, and the judges in the room, the one with the gable, the ones in the jury box, and the pews, everyone--switching back and forth until coming to rest on one side, with the amount of nuance or lack thereof they see fitting.
