That amount is obscene. It's legal, it's a free market and Martha agreed to the fee's. Nevertheless, it's obscene.
What's obscene about it? The government routinely spends millions to nail someone because some prosecutor - like, for instance, Eliot Spitzer - wants to make a name for himself and run for office. And if you don't have the money to defend yourself against an onslaught like that, well, too bad. They have all the money in the world. They can come down on you with bogus charges - like the incomprehensibly unjust charge in this case that was thrown out - and you will go bankrupt fighting them.
Don't believe me? Ask the Iran-Contra defendants, like Oliver North and Robert MacFarlane. One of the reasons Ken Starr came down on Clinton was to point out what a blunt object the Special Prosecutor law was - a virtual money pool dedicated to "getting" anyone that the other political party wanted put away. Note that the Democrats voted to get rid of the SP law after that, having successfully destroyed the reputations of countless Republicans with it, mostly for crap that paled in comparison to the crimes the Democrats engage in.
I don't like Ms. Smirk or her Linen Line. But the whole gig here was a set from the get - a show trial by the attorneys to let the capitalists know that success will be dealt with severly, and if the little people want good furniture, they can get it from the government approved store, and no other, by god.
I wonder what the price tag on the good defence was?