“...the contingent fee Wood made off the bajillion-zillion dollar settlement he got for Sandmann? “
At least for the first case, Wood handled the case pro bono, there was no “bajillion-zillion dollar” deal for Wood. Or in the words of the Barry Soetero, “not even a smidgen.”
Are you sure about that? I’ve seen where Wood said he’d represent Rittenhouse pro Bono, but I’ve never seen that with Regard to Sandmann. And it would be pretty unusual for a lawyer to take a case like Sandmann’s—a suit for damages against a solvent defendant—pro bono rather than on a contingent fee. If he did, he probably would have mentioned it in a press release, but he didn’t.
In any event, if my sarcasm wasn’t clear, I don’t believe for a second that the CNN settlement was anything to write home about. If it was, Wood wouldn’t have threatened to sue CNN for breaching the confidentiality clause when Stelter suggested the settlement was for nuisance value. He would have said CNN is in breach and would have disclosed the settlement amount himself.
I am a plaintiff’s lawyer and have settled hundreds of cases. When you get a big settlement, it’s the defendant who insists on confidentiality, not the plaintiff.