Wolfgang,
To your first point, the billing rates were clearly stated in the law firms' engagement letters.
To your second point, I'm sure we could all think of other projects and goals where the money could have been "better spent." You've stated yours. But that is not the proper test. This was and continues to be money we need to spend to achieve the goals we have set. Under different circumstances, perhaps it would be a different amount (or maybe none at all). But it was strongly felt at the outset that the group needed to have independent counsel. Clearly that counsel needed to have recognized expertise in the appropriate legal areas. As such, I believe we made excellent choices and have been very well represented.
As to your "better spent" test, I just had to have $4000.00 worth of emergency dental work done. This money definitely could have been "better spent" on a nice vacation, redecorating our living room or on donations to my favored charitable causes. But I had no choice, other than to choose which dentist and endodontist I went to, and I wasn't going to cut corners -- the dental work was a necessity. Similarly, the legal work we are getting is a necessity and whether we would have preferred to spend the money elsewhere is not merely irrelevant, it is an incorrect and inappropriate proposition. Many of us are investing vast quantities of time that could be "better spent" elsewhere as well, but we are willing (grudgingly sometimes) to spend the time it takes to get it right, because we believe it needs to be done. This is the appropriate measure, whether it comes to our time or counsels' time. If we believe in this project, we have to invest in it, and do what it takes to succeed.
Of course, this investment has to be managed wisely and cost-effectively, and by and large, I believe the CCWG has done that reasonably well -- not perfectly, but reasonably well and with "course corrections" along the way intended to improve that management. It's certainly fair to ask, as Robin has done, for a better understanding of that management as we go along. But asserting that the money could have been "better spent" elsewhere sets up a false test that we should not use to evaluate this important aspect of our work. Instead, we need to focus on whether the money was "well spent" on these critical legal services. If you have reason to believe it was not, that could be useful to know. That would at least be the right discussion to have.
Greg