You post suggests to me that a)you're a lawyer and b)your practice involves at least some litigation in probate courts.If that's true then you surely know a whole lot more about this stuff than do I.However,I know a little bit about such things..having been involved in such a matter (as a beneficiary...not as a challenger or executor).Our lawyer advised that we settle with the challenger *only* in order to avoid a bloody,drawn out and expensive fight.So the challenger wound up settling for about 10% of what she would have gotten had the deceased died intestate.
If I were a major (or even a minor) beneficiary of a billion dollar estate and someone like Paris came along to challenge I might support throwing her a small percentage of the pie (10...15...20 million) just to shut her up.Others surely may not.
Also, any lawyer who takes the case on Paris' behalf will have to be seriously concerned about having sanctions awarded against him since it could well be deemed frivolous.
How would such a challenge be deemed "frivolous"? It seems to me that Paris could perjure herself every time she moved her lips and unless convincing proof of perjury could be produced the worst result she could expect is a dismissal of her challenge.But then,I ain't no lawyer.
I would guess that in your personal situation there was at least a scintilla of a theory on which the challenger contested the will.
I do understand the idea of eliminating the nuisance, but it depends how steadfast the estate is. The Anna Nicole Smith case is a great example. The estate refused to play ball and it has dragged on for years without her or her estate yet seeing a dime - and Anna Nicole was in a much better position than Paris because she was a spouse.
Most states have rules providing that any attorney and client who bring a frivolous case can have sanctions awarded against them. These can be financial sanctions or, in the case of the attorney, bar sanctions. Paris would have nothing relevant to add to the proceeding. She may not even be permitted to testity. She would be claiming undue influence or lack of mental capacity and would try to support her claim through the testimony of medical professionals. I obviously don't know Barron Hilton, but I would suspect that any claim that he doesn't possess testamentary capacity would be laughable. Without any basis whatsoever for the will contest, it could be deemed frivolous. Judges don't often award sanctions, but I was just involved in a case where the judge did just that against the opponent.
Frivolous cases subvert the legal system and unnecessarily tie up limited judicial resources. In a high profile case such as this would be, I could see a judge awarding sanctions to publicly send the message that such nonsense will not be tolerated. Of course, it may be a Judge Ito or that idiot judge in the Anna Nicole case sitting on the bench so one never knows for sure what would happen.