It's in the testimony, the other two lawyers in the firm were not doing RICO work, they were doing First Appearance and Filter/Taint reviews. First Appearance work is basically showing up for arraignments at night court, taint work was filter files from the GBI for police statements that could or could not be turned over to Prosecutors.
Come on, Oldestyle would you pay the janitor the same rate to change a lightbulb as you would for an electrical to rewire a room.
I know I wouldn't.
I'm not "excusing" what she did, she was wrong for boinking a contractor. No if, ands or butts. The question isn't was she paying attorney's at the same firm different rates for different work, it's absolutely good management to do that. That is what the testimony about was in court.
What the claimants should have done is introduce evidence (if they had any) that Willis was paying Wade more than she paid other contract prosecutors. Now THAT would have been an indication of fiscal malfeasance. Now either multiple lawyers for multiple claimants from the RICO clients didn't think of that, OR they did think of it and found that Wade was paid the same and didn't want it brought up during the hearing. Given there were at least half a dozen (maybe as many as 10 if you count those that Zoom'd in) lawyers for the claimants they to shut down the case, I suspect that Wade was paid the same otherwise they would have brought it in.
So come on, Oldstyle recognize that this wasn't about Willis, it was trying to get the case stalled or dismissed to protect the big fish in the case.
WW