What confuses me then is why the kids thought they might lose that they decided a crappy deal where the lawyer gets 2/3 of the pie was fantastic? It's a pretty open and shut case where everyone knew the kids were going to win (and for those paying attention it was clear it would lead to a settlement) so why on earth would you take a lawyer who would pocket most of it for doing absolutely nothing? There were plenty of other lawyers, even ones that can be assigned if you cant afford one, so i am perplexed.
For negotiation reasons, you say? Please. As B.T Barnum said: "There's a sucker born every minute."
It interesting to note that the winner in all of this ends up being the biggest loser.