My question is first, whether contigency cases result in conflict of interest for the attorneys of the plaintiff and second, whether the strategy of DM was subject to this problem. I don't know the answer to the secong question but there is a prima facie case to be made about the first. All my attorney friends suggest, albeit in low voice, that their preference favors the minimization of time they spend in a contigency case. It seems that DM has minimize the time they spent on this case.