How would this dialogue have been different if a majority of the judges had ever litigated at the trial level? The "quality of the case" is often determined in discovery, where skillful drafting of the complaint is necessary to avoid lots of issues that ruin cases at high levels (standing, immunity issues), and careful drafting of interrogatories and other discovery management can determine whether the case is winnable or not. An appellate lawyer never has to deal with any of that.

Also, the dividing by one to say how much "a" lawyer gets paid in a year shows a complete lack of connection with modern law practice: there are support staff to be paid, other attorneys assisting in going through discovery materials, etc. ...there was way more than one lawyer on a matter that large, especially at the trial stage.

This kind of argument lends support to O'Connor's point about a diversity of backgrounds being helpful at the court -- is it wise to have so many of our justices come from appellate and academic backgrounds, as opposed to being civil or criminal trial attorneys?